Around
the world, there is a striking convergence of opinion concerning the
relationship between the US and Israel.

Supporters
of the PLO - synonymous with "supporters of a Palestinian
state", because the PLO will run any such state - are convinced that the US is an ally of Israel. Some
believe the US employs Israel in order to expand the American empire,
and others - echoing the claims of that infamous forgery, "The
Protocols of Zion"- believe that history's greatest superpower, the
US, is actually the pawn of tiny Israel. Either way, they are agreed
that the US and Israel are supposedly 'a team.'

Supporters
of Israel naturally disagree with supporters of the
PLO about most things but not on this point, as they also believe that the US is a
friend of Israel - perhaps its only real friend. Whereas those who are
pro-PLO are especially infuriated by perceived US support for Israel,
those who are pro-Israel are deliriously grateful for the same
(especially so in the case of Zionist Jews).

Given
that across the spectrum of those politically mobilized on this issue,
from one pole to the other, everybody appears to have the same opinion
on this, casual observers are naturally drawn into agreement as well,
creating a crushing consensus all over the world: the US is an ally of
Israel.

But is
it true?

Let us
first ask: what is an ally? My dictionary defines 'ally' as "one
who is associated with another as helper."

Everybody knows that the US says it supports Israel. But actions speak
louder than words. What is the evidence of US actions? In this
piece I provide a chronological list of relevant US policies over the
years.

I am hoping that this piece will begin a debate. It is not finished, and
the research relevant to its claims is ongoing. I shall be updating
the piece as I gather more data. But I have already assembled quite
a lot, below, and what I have is certainly sufficient to challenge
the common view. I believe, in fact, that what I have presented
below is already sufficient
to refute the common view many times over, and the compilation of these documented
facts came as a big eye-opener. Hopefully this documentation will
begin a serious debate on this question, rather than an
automatic assumption based on official claims of US support for Israel
- which claims are cheaply, and therefore easily, made.

It is
important to remember that what is examined here is the behavior of
the US foreign policy Establishment, which is secretive. The evidence therefore speaks to what is, and
has been, the true position of the US ruling elite with regard
to Israel and the Jewish people. It does not speak to the position of the American people,
many of whom, I believe, will be outraged to find that, as I document
below, the US specializes in attacking Israel. In fact the
section on 1947-48contains dramatic evidence
that ordinary Americans tend not to favor the anti-Jewish policies
of the US ruling elite.

The
chronology already goes up to the year 2005, but I have yet to
complete the research on some of the missing years in between.

[NOTE: In this document, when you see ared footnote
this means that, in addition
to giving the source and/or a link, there is extra material
(sometimes relatively lengthy) that is worth reading and which
provides additional context and clarification. Many of my sources
are available on the web and I have provided the hyperlinks in the
footnotes (whether red or not) so that readers may easily examine
them.]

____________________________________________________________

Contents
____________________________________________________________

The
1930's- Negative - The US Establishment
helped sponsor the rise of the German Nazi movement.

1939-1945- Negative
- This year's material is divided into
the following sections:

3.The allies refused to sabotage Hitler's Final Solution by military
means

1945- Negative - After 1945, the US created US Intelligence by recruiting
tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals.

1947-48- Mixed to Negative - Forced by external circumstances, the
US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of
Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies
designed to destroy Israel.

1949-1953- Negative - In Israel's hour of supreme need, the US
allied with Israel's mortal enemies.

1955- Mixed - The US forces Israel to withdraw from Sinai, but
makes some concessions to the Israelis.

1973-1975- Negative - The US supported the election of a pro-PLO
Nazi war criminal to the post of UN Secretary General.

1975- Negative - The US reached an agreement with Israel not to
have contacts with the PLO. The US immediately violated the
agreement.

1977- Negative - Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist
PLO the dignity of a 'government in exile,' and then he teamed up
with the Soviets to try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state
next door.

1978- Negative - When Israel tried to defend itself from the
PLO terrorists, the US forced Israel to stand back.

1987-1988- Negative - The 'First Intifada' was a US-PLO strategy used to
represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed
'underdogs.'

1989- Negative - With Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state
in the open as the 'only solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

1991
- Negative - Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to
participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West
Bank and Gaza.

1994
- Negative - Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel
Peace Prize, and the CIA trained
the PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this
very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and
kill Jews.

1996-1997- Negative - The United States
exerted such strong pressure on the Netanyahu government (including
threats) that, even though Netanyahu had been elected on an anti-Oslo
platform, he had the necessary cover to betray the Israeli public that
had elected him.

2005 - Negative - Mahmoud Abbas, who will soon have total control over
Gaza, is the one who invented the strategy of talking 'peace' the
better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves
Mahmoud Abbas.

The US Establishment
helped sponsor the rise of the German Nazi movement.
____________________________________________________________

The larger
American Establishment cooperated extensively with the Nazi death machine.
One particularly glaring example is the case of IBM, which knowingly
helped automate the entire Nazi process of extermination.[1]Much of the money to
finance the rise of the Nazi party came from wealthy Americans (including
the current US president’s grandfather and great grandfather (Prescott
Bush and George Herbert Walker).[1a]Many influential Americans, both inside
and outside of government, had Nazi sympathies. It is not an exaggeration
to call Henry Ford an architect of the Holocaust, for example.[1b]

From the Summary:
In the first three decades of the 20th Century, American corporate
philanthropy combined with prestigious academic fraud to create the
pseudoscience eugenics that institutionalized race politics as
national policy. The goal: create a superior, white, Nordic race and
obliterate the viability of everyone else.

How? By identifying
so-called "defective" family trees and subjecting them to legislated
segregation and sterilization programs. The victims: poor people,
brown-haired white people, African Americans, immigrants, Indians,
Eastern European Jews, the infirm and really anyone classified
outside the superior genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.
The main culprits were the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller
Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune, in league with
America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious
universities as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, operating out of a
complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. The eugenic network
worked in tandem with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the State
Department and numerous state governmental bodies and legislatures
throughout the country, and even the U.S. Supreme Court. They were
all bent on breeding a eugenically superior race, just as
agronomists would breed better strains of corn. The plan was to wipe
away the reproductive capability of the weak and inferior...

American eugenic crusades proliferated into a worldwide campaign,
and in the 1920s came to the attention of Adolf Hitler. Under the
Nazis, American eugenic principles were applied without restraint,
careening out of control into the Reich's infamous genocide. During
the pre-War years, American eugenicists openly supported Germany's
program. The Rockefeller Foundation financed the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute and the work of its central racial scientists. Once WWII
began, Nazi eugenics turned from mass sterilization and euthanasia
to genocidal murder. One of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute doctors in
the program financed by the Rockefeller Foundation was Josef Mengele
who continued his research in Auschwitz, making daily eugenic
reports on twins...

For a history of the
American eugenics movement and how it went about creating
"intelligence testing" (so-called "IQ research") in order to, with
frauds, allege that certain people were genetically inferior, the
better to exterminate them, read: Resurrecting Racism: The
Modern Attack on Black People Using Phony Science, by Francisco
Gil-White; Historical and Investigative Research (2004).
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrcontents.htm

James
Carroll, who has written a history of Western antisemitism, comments,

"As
late as 1938, in a furious public rebuttal by Hitler to the
world
leaders who had denounced the Kristallnacht pogroms, his
decidedly
unfinal solution to the Jewish problem was still 'Jews out!,'
not 'Jews dead!' His proposal, at that point, was the moral and
political equivalent of [Medieval Spain's] Queen Isabella's,
the
expulsion of all Jews from the lands controlled by the Reich.
Jews
were offered immediate exit visas -- but exit to where? The
same world
leaders, notably Neville Chamberlain and Franklin D.
Roosevelt, who
had denounced the anti-Jewish violence of the Nazis declined
to
receive Jews as refugees... Crucial to [the Final Solution]
building
to a point of no return was Hitler's discovery (late) of the
political indifference of the democracies to the fate of the
Jews..."[2]

It is
certainly amazing that the US should not have received as refugees the
very people whose extermination the US denounced in public. But what
is most amazing is that, even though the above reads as an indictment
of the US and Britain, in fact Carroll's statement covers up
what really happened (perhaps unwittingly). The western democracies were not guilty of "political
indifference…to the fate of the Jews," as Carroll claims. On the
contrary, they were quite interested: the Allied governments eagerly cooperated with the Final Solution.

1. The general policy of the Allies towards the plight
of the Jews___________

In a documented summary of Allied
behavior toward the Jews in WWII, Kenneth Levin writes,

"State Department officials
throughout this period typically held strong anti-immigration
sentiments and seem to have been especially determined to block the
immigration of Jews into the United States. Policies adopted by
State regarding issuance of visas were in fact much more restrictive
than even the strict immigration laws of the period. Thus, the
number of visas issued to Jews during the war, including during the
years when the Nazis' genocide program was fully known, was barely
10 percent of those potentially available to European Jews under the
immigration quota legislation then in effect."[2a]

Levin explains that the British had an
identical policy.

"The lengths to which the British Foreign
Office went to prevent the rescue of Jews is indicated by an episode
involving Japan. In 1940, the Japanese vice consul in Kovno, Lithuania,
Chiune Sugihara, issued several thousand visas to Jews desperate to
escape Europe. Hillel Levine, a professor of sociology and religion at
Boston University who was working on a book about Sugihara, did research
in the archives of the Japanese Foreign Ministry in Tokyo to investigate
to what extent the Japanese government was aware of Sugihara's efforts
to save Jews. He not only discovered documents there charting Sugihara's
activities but also complaints from the British Foreign Office (this is,
of course, before Britain and Japan were at war) protesting Sugihara's
visas and warning that the rescued Jews would become a burden on Japan.

This policy of discouraging and
obstructing rescue by other parties, and, of course, the Foreign
Office's own eschewing of any rescue effort, persisted even after the
Allies learned of the Nazis' extermination program."[2b]

This was not just a British policy, but
American as well. In 1941, after "agents of the Rumanian regime,
together with German death squads, had already slaughtered 200,000 of
the approximately 800,000 Jews within Rumania's borders," the Rumanians
apparently began having second thoughts about exterminating all
of the Jews.

"The Turkish ambassador in Budapest then
proposed to the American ambassador a plan for the orderly transport of
300,000 Rumanian Jews through Turkey to Palestine and urged the
Americans to push the plan with the British. But the State Department
objected to the plan and refused to present it to the British."[2c]

One of the excuses offered up by the Allies was that there wasn't
enough shipping. It was bogus.

"...much neutral shipping was readily
available and was, indeed, employed by the Allies throughout the war to
rescue many thousand non-Jews -- from Greece and Yugoslavia, for example
-- and transport them to safe havens. In addition, over 400,000 German
prisoners of war were transported to the United States between 1942 and
1945."[2d]

In other words, the safety of genocidal
Nazi soldiers was much more important to the Allies than the safety of
their innocent Jewish victims. It is difficult to distinguish the
attitude of the Allied ruling elites toward the Jews from that of the
Nazi Third Reich.

"...in the first months of 1943
information reached the West from Rumania that, of 130,000 Jews earlier
deported to the Transnistria region, 70,000 remained alive, although
destitute and starving, and that Rumania, presumably for a price, was
prepared to release these 70,000 to the Allies and even provide ships to
transport them to Palestine or some other Allied territory. The State
Department dismissed the offer out of hand, refusing to explore the
proposal. It also refused to consider undertaking negotiations that may
have led the Rumanians to extend protection for a time to the
Transnistrian Jews even if State had no intention of supporting a
rescue.

These patterns of obstruction to
intervention continued to characterize the State Department's answer to
the Nazi genocide throughout the war. It routinely deferred responses to
plans for rescue, dismissed plans out of hand as impractical, and
invoked bogus impediments to rescue, such as the supposed shipping
problem... Another tack was State's persistent withholding of visas from
Jews who had reached neutral countries and whose evacuation would have
made those countries more amenable to admitting additional refugees. The
State Department even sought to block broadcast of threats to bring to
justice the perpetrators of the genocide, as well as broadcast of
appeals for the people in occupied Europe to aid the Jews."[2e]

It has been common to blame the State
Department and excuse Roosevelt. An absurdity: the State Department was
composed of Roosevelt's employees. And "Some have argued that Roosevelt
was too busy conducting the war to pay much attention to the Nazi
genocide." Another absurdity.[2e]
But to lay such issues to rest, let us consider in more detail the
question of the "withholding of visas from Jews," for this policy had
Roosevelt's explicit authority, so he paid attention to it.

2. The visa policy of the United States was designed to trap Jews in
Europe, where Hitler would find them____________________________________________

[My sources in this section come from
a PBS documentation of the behavior of the United States toward the
plight of the Jews in WWII with the title, America and the
Holocaust.]

During
the war,

"the
US…erected a 'paper wall,' a bureaucratic maze that prevented
all but a few Jewish refugees from entering the country. It was not
until 1944, that a small band of Treasury Department employees forced
the government to respond."[3]

In a
memo by Randolph Paul for the Foreign Funds Control Unit of the
Treasury Department (dated January 13, 1944), entitled Report to
the Secretary on the Acquiescence of this Government in the Murder
of the Jews, he wrote:

"Frankly,
Breckinridge Long, in my humble opinion, is least sympathetic to
refugees in all the State Department. I attribute to him the tragic
bottleneck in the granting of visas."[4]

Breckinridge
Long was Roosevelt's Assistant Secretary of State. In 1943, he gave
a statement before the US House of Representatives on the refugee
question, in which Long expressed his supposed concern for the Jews,
and boasted that the US had admitted 580,000 refugees. Congressman
Emanuel Celler rebuked and refuted Long in the House of
Representatives on December 20, 1943, and Randolph Paul quotes his
remarks in the above-mentioned memo:

"***In
the first place these 580,000 refugees were in the main ordinary quota
immigrants coming in from all countries. The majority were not Jews.
His [Long's] statement drips with sympathy for the persecuted Jews,
but the tears he sheds are crocodile. I would like to ask him how many
Jews were admitted during the last 3 years in comparison with the
number seeking entrance to preserve life and dignity. *** One gets the
impression from Long's statement that the United States has gone out
of its way to help refugees fleeing death at the hands of the Nazis. I
deny this. On the contrary, the State Department has turned its back
on the time-honored principle of granting havens to refugees. The
tempest-tossed get little comfort from men like Breckinridge Long. ***
Long says that the door to the oppressed is open but that it 'has
been carefully screened.' What he should have said is 'barlocked
and bolted.' By the act of 1924, we are permitted to admit
approximately 150,000 immigrants each year. During the last fiscal
year only 23,725 came as immigrants. Of these only 4,705 were Jews
fleeing Nazi persecution."[4]

In fact,
as stated by Randolph Paul in the same memo, "According to Earl G.
Harrison, Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
not since 1862 have there been fewer aliens entering the country."
This, at a time when immigration to the US was the only way for so
many Jews to escape a gruesome death.

But
Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long's strategy was much
worse than merely denying visas. Breckinridge Long explained to State
Department officials, in a memo dated 26 June 1940, exactly how the
visas would be effectively denied to the Jews trying to escape
slaughter:

"We
can delay and effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite
length the number of immigrants into the United States. We could do
this by simply advising our consuls, to put every obstacle in the way
and to require additional evidence and to resort to various
administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone
the granting of the visas."[5]

It is
important to see that a strategy of "postpone and postpone and
postpone" is not at all the same as denying visas. As
Emmanuel Celler complained: "It takes months and months to grant the
visas and then it usually applies to a corpse." In other words, many
Jews who were told repeatedly that they would get a visa, the issuance
of which kept getting postponed, did not seek a safe haven elsewhere,
and as a result were overtaken by Hitler's men. Long's strategy
was therefore designed not merely to keep Jews out of the US, but to
assist Adolph Hitler's Final Solution by corralling as many Jews as
possible where Hitler could find them.

Although
Randolph Paul accused, "I attribute to [Breckinridge Long] the
tragic bottleneck in the granting of visas," his next sentences
reveal that this was not a maverick policy of Long's, but in fact
had the most widespread support in the Roosevelt administration:

"The
Interdepartmental Review Committees which review the applications for
visas are composed of one official, respectively, from each of the
following Departments: War, Navy, F.B.I. State, and Immigration. That
committee has been glacier-like in its slowness and coldbloodedness."

Nor
were these various departments and agencies acting without the
knowledge of President Roosevelt. Some time after Breckinridge
Long's memo of June 1940, Margaret E. Jones, an American Quaker
trying to help European Jews emigrate to the US, wrote to
Clarence E.
Pickett, a leader in the Quaker community,[6]telling him of her conversations with various US consular officials in
Europe about the impact of this memo. As you will see from the quote
below, Ms. Jones was under the impression that the US Congress wanted
to stop immigration to the US completely and hypothesized that the
State Department was acting in good faith, such that the new draconian
restrictions on immigration were meant to mollify Congress and thus
prevent it from prohibiting any immigration to the US.
The consular officials in Europe disabused her of this notion and
explained to her that it was not Congress but president Roosevelt
himself who did not want "non-Aryans" entering the country. Here
is an excerpt from Margaret Jones letter:

"Last
July, en route from Geneva back to the Vienna Center, I stopped in
Zurich and had an interview with Mr. Strom, at the U.S. Consulate. He
told me of recent orders
from Washington [the Breckinridge Long memo] which would severely
limit the number of visas ordinarily issued month by month from the
various Consulates… Later in Vienna, Mr. Hohenthal told me too about
the new stringent regulations, and was also obviously interested when
I raised the same question with him. About the middle of August, the
Consulate…telephoned to say [that] Mr. Warren, Mr. Morris and Mr.
Hohenthal and I [talk] that afternoon about the new regulations
concerning emigration. Mr. Warren began by saying, 'Miss Jones, you
Quakers will be doing a straight relief job for the non-Aryans here
from now on.' I said, 'No more non Aryans to go to the U.S.?'
Warren replied- 'Not just non-Aryans - but no more aliens.' Then I
asked him… was this an attempt to forestall Congress and prevent an
out and out closing of immigration by making so severe a cut that the
State Dept. could assure Congress they had the situation in hand.Mr.
Warren said not Congress, but the President just did not want any more
aliens coming to the U.S.
and would like to have it closed especially for aliens coming from
Germany."[7](my emphasis)

We must
take note not only of the fact that State Department officials
appeared quite aware of all this being president Roosevelt's
initiative, but that these same officials matter-of-factly used
Hitler's racist language in reference to Jews ("non-Aryans"),
and also that there was a special concern to prevent immigration fromGermany (i.e. specifically to prevent Jews fleeing slaughter).

Additional
evidence that Roosevelt was directly behind all this comes from
Breckinridge Long himself, who made the following entry in his diary,
dated 3 October 1940 (four months after his "postpone, postpone,
postpone" memo):

"So
when I saw him [FDR] this morning the whole subject of immigration,
visas, safety of the United States, procedures to be followed; and all
that sort of thing was on the table. I found that he was 100% in
accord with my ideas… The President expressed himself as in entire
accord with the policy which would exclude persons about whom there
was any suspicion that they would be inimical to the welfare of the
United States no matter who had vouchsafed for them and irrespective
of their financial or other standing. I left him with the satisfactory
thought that he was wholeheartedly in support of the policy which
would resolve in favor of the United States any doubts about
admissibility of any individual."[8]

Roosevelt
had only one meeting with American Jewish leaders about the
Holocaust. It was in 1942 and it lasted only 29 minutes, 23 of which
were spent by the president lecturing his Jewish guests on various
matters, including how unfair it was that Jews supposedly had more
rights than Muslims in some parts of North Africa! Roosevelt explained
that he knew about Hitler's mass killings, but he promised to do
nothing for the Jews of Europe beyond issuing a statement.[9]

Another
event also makes clear how Roosevelt felt about Hitler's Final
Solution:

"Four
months after the State Department confirmed the dimensions of the
Holocaust, British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden met in Washington
with President Roosevelt, Secretary of State Cordell Hull and
Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles. At this meeting, Eden expressed
his fear that Hitler might actually accept an offer from the Allies to
move Jews out of areas under German control. No one present objected
to Eden's statement."[10]

3. The allies refused to sabotage the Final Solution
by military means
________________

[My sources in this section come from
a PBS documentation of the behavior of the United States toward the
plight of the Jews in WWII with the title, America and the
Holocaust.]

It would
not have been difficult to bomb the concentration camps, and even less
difficult to bomb the train tracks leading there. Train tracks, after
all, stretch for hundreds of kilometers and simply cannot be
everywhere protected. But the German trains ran on time, and delivered
their human cargo to the camps without interruptions, because the
Allies chose never to interfere with Hitler's genocide of the Jewish
people.

That, in
itself, is amazing. But what is truly spectacular is that the US
refused to do this even in 1944, when

1)
it was well known that Hitler was about to murder the Jews of
Hungary (400,000) at Auschwitz (to a close approximation, they were all
murdered);

2)
many were begging the Roosevelt administration to bomb the camp
and/or the train tracks.

Here is
the story:

"On
April 7, 1944, two Slovakian Jews escaped from Auschwitz. By the end
of the month they had reached the Jewish underground in Slovakia,
where they gave a detailed account of the mass murder operations at
the camp. The two men also warned that preparations were underway to
murder the Jews of Hungary. Their report initiated a series of
requests that the U.S. bomb the crematoria at Auschwitz and key rail
links that would be used to transport Hungarian Jews to Poland."[11]

On June
12 1944, the Agudas Israel World Organization received a cable from
Switzerland describing the situation of the Hungarian Jews and calling
for bombing the deportation railways.[12]

Jacob
Rosenheim, from the Agudas Israel World Organization in New York, sent
a letter to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury, dated
June 18, 1944, asking that deportation rail lines be bombed.[13]You may ask, why to Morgenthau at Treasury? Because, as we saw
earlier, it is apparently only a handful of officers at the Treasury
Department who were opposed to the Final Solution and considered it
immoral that the US was cooperating with it.

On June
26, 1944, Thomas Handy, Assistant Chief of Staff at the War
Department, sent a memo to the Director of the Civil Affairs Division,
conveying the Operations Division's conclusion that bombing the
deportation railways was 'impracticable.' This was

"In
line with [the War Department's] undeclared policy not to aid in the
rescue of refugees, the War Department routinely turned down requests
to bomb deportation railways. No studies were ever conducted to check
the feasibility of such bombing raids."[14]

No
studies. In other words, requests to bomb the deportation railways
were just rejected out of hand.

On June
29, 1944, an internal memo in the War Refugee Board from Benjamin
Akzin to Lawrence S. Lesser urged the bombing of Auschwitz and
Birkenau.[15]And on August 9 The World Jewish Congress in New York asked the War
Department to bomb the crematoria at Auschwitz. The War Department
turned down the request (August 14, 1944).[16]

On
November 18, 1944, John J. McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War,
explained to John W. Pehle, the Director of the War Refugee Board,
that the War Department could not authorize the bombing of Auschwitz,
the reason supposedly being,

"that
the raid would divert air support from the war effort. The Department
also claimed that the camp was beyond the maximum range of bombers
located in Britain, France or Italy. [But] These assertions were
false: In July of 1944, the Allies began a series of air raids on
Germany's synthetic-oil industry which was based in Upper Silesia
near Auschwitz. On August 20, 127 Flying Fortresses dropped thousands
of pounds of high explosives on the factory areas of Auschwitz which
were less than five miles from the gas chambers. Three weeks later,
the U.S. targeted those same sites. This time two bombs accidentally
fell near the killing installations and one actually damaged a rail
line leading to the gas chambers."[17]

In other
words, only one Allied bomb affected Hitler's Final Solution, and
this bomb did so by accident.

After
1945, the US
created US Intelligence by recruiting tens of thousands of Nazi war
criminals.
____________________________________________________________

In his history
of Western antisemitism, James Carroll writes in
passing:

"Croation clergy in Rome were part of the infamous ‘Rat Line’
through which numerous Nazi war criminals, with the collusion of the U.S.
Army, escaped to Latin America.”[18]

Carroll was
writing in 2001, and yet, already in 1988 it had been shown that the
secret US protection for Nazi war criminals had been much more extensive
than Carroll lets on. In 1988, the Washington Post wrote:

“It is no longer necessary -- or possible -- to deny the fact:
the U.S. government systematically and deliberately recruited
active Nazis by the thousands, rescued them, hired them and
relied upon them to serve American interests and purposes in
postwar Europe.”[18c]

The Washington
Post was reviewing “the archival sleuthing of [historian]
Christopher Simpson,” which involved poring over many “documents...
declassified under the Freedom of Information Act”:

Simpson,
Christopher (1988) Blowback: America’s recruitment of Nazis and
its effects on the Cold War. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.

Simpson shows that the US absorbed in secret almost the
entire Nazi war criminal organization (tens of thousands of Nazi
war criminals, not "thousands"), and out of this formed the CIA,
which then used its Nazi assets all over the world to destroy progressive movements and install right-wing
repressive autocrats, and also to put Nazis back in power in various
European countries under the cover that they were "Christian Democrats."

So what we learn is that it is, after all,
possible "to deny the fact," because Carroll pretended later, in 2001,
that this hadn't happened, and that the US military had merely helped
escape some Nazi war criminals to Latin America.

To learn more
about this, consult the following articles:

The US Recreated the
Nazi War Crimes Machine: US
Intelligence was Formed from Nazi War Criminals; Emperor's Clothes; by Jared
Israel

Though Germany may have lost
the war, the
Nazis, and their ideology, certainly appear to have done quite well. In
context, this has certain implications for our interpretation of the
twentieth century. Consider:

1)
The rise of Nazi ideology was initially sponsored from the
US (see1930's section)

2)
Its most important ideological component - the mobilization of
antisemitic hatred and the creation of an infrastructure to exterminate
the Jewish people - was eagerly supported by the US (see 1930's sectionand1939-45 section);

3) At the conclusion of WWII, Nazi war
criminals were either used in place where they were, or given new
identities and brought to the US by the thousands (above).

I note that
even after the war there were restrictions on Jewish immigration to the
US. By contrast, and at the same time, the US was pulling all the stops to
get their murderers into the country, as documented by Christopher Simpson
(see above).

From the
perspective of these horrifying facts, it is obvious that US involvement
in the World War had nothing to do with a principled opposition to Nazi
ideology.

What was WWII really about?
I shall not insist on one particular interpretation, but the
following well-documented facts seem relevant.

First,
it seems relevant that the eugenic US Establishment nurtured the German
Nazis, and that the eugenicists were backed to the hilt by
the US government, as Edwin Black documents in detail in War
Against the Weak (see 1930's section).

One also has to consider that Winston
Churchill had a very cordial meeting with the millionaire Putzi
Hanfstaengl, who was Adolf Hitler's financier and spokesman, in
1932, on the eve of Hitler's coming to power. In this connection, it
also appears relevant that just a few years earlier, in 1929,
Churchill had become William Randolph Hearst's employee.
Hearst happens to have been an intimate friend of the
above-mentioned Putzi
Hanfstaengl, and was called by his contemporaries “the most
influential American fascist…the keystone of American fascism.”[18a]

It seems relevant also
that Churchill was 1) a cheerleader for fascism who called Benito
Mussolini "the greatest lawgiver among living men" in 1933, as
Hitler was taking power, 2) an enthusiast of the same eugenics
movement that produced German Nazism; 3) an advocate of mass
extermination of non-whites; 4) a proponent of the idea that the
countries of Europe should go to war in order to get rid of useless
riffraff; and 5) a class warrior who loathed the lower classes
and thought a good way to end a strike was to shoot the strikers
dead.[18a]

Beyond that, it seems
significant also that the Western Allies handed all of Western Europe to
Hitler practically without firing a bullet. Then Hitler was nice
enough to let the great majority of Allied soldiers evacuate from Dunkirk even though he could
have massacred them. The Allies left their armament for Hitler
on the beach.[18b]

There is also the fact
that the Nazi occupation of Western Europe was for most people
relatively gentle. The Jews in Western Europe were certainly hunted
down and taken to the camps, and there was no pity for the few
resistance fighters. But aside from that Western Europe was mostly
calm and its cities survived for the most part untouched. By
dramatic contrast, in Eastern Europe, where the overwhelming
majority of the Jews lived, and where most of the politicized
workers also lived, the Nazis carried out one unbelievable slaughter
after another. During this time the policy of the Allies was one of
studied non-interference with the mass killings, and an energetic
visa policy designed to trap as many Jews as possible in Europe (see
section 1939-45).

The Nazis were not able
to reach Moscow and were trapped by the Russian winter. It is only
when the victorious Soviets were clearly headed for the Atlantic
that the Allies invaded Europe. By then, the European Jewish
population had been exterminated.

The subsequent absorption
of the Nazi war criminals as US Intelligence assets in 1945 (see above) is also food for
thought. To see an example of how these Nazis were used, see
1985 section.

Then, in
1948, as the Israeli Jews
were fighting for their lives in their War of Independence, fending
off a combined Arab attack that had for explicitly avowed purpose
the extermination of the Jewish people, the United States slapped an
arms embargo against the Israeli Jews, and declared
its opposition to the creation of the State of Israel (below).
Meanwhile, Britain
sent many captured Nazi officers to lead the Arab armies (below).
But the US and Britain were not opposed to restoring Germany -- the
country that had carried out the Final Solution against the European
Jews -- to health. This they strongly endorsed, in what became
the famous Marshall Plan.

Forced by
external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the
creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and
implemented policies designed to destroy Israel.
____________________________________________________________

Pro: At the UN, in
1947, the US voted in favor of partitioning the territory which the
British had baptized "Palestine" in 1921.This
partition would create an Arab state and a Jewish state in that
territory. The US vote was crucial to the
founding of the State of Israel.

Con: The US did not support partition. Although Truman ordered the US ambassador at the UN to
vote in favor, the entire State Department was vociferously opposed to
this, and there was zero US diplomacy to influence the votes of US client
states to vote in favor of partition (with the consequence that many of
them voted against).[19]

As a Jerusalem Post
article of 1997 recalled,

"US secretary of
state George Marshall, concerned about American interests in the
Middle East, had recommended against partition [i.e. he
recommended against the creation of a Jewish state] but had been
overruled by Truman. A key factor was the support of the Soviet
bloc."[19a]

A key
factor was the support of the Soviet bloc. I shall return to
this.
For now, however, notice that George
Marshall, who opposed the creation of a state where the Jews could
live safe from attempts to exterminate them, is also the man behind
the celebrated "Marshall Plan," which had for purpose nursing to
health the countries whose fascism had precipitated World War II:
Germany and Japan. The British, too, loved the Marshall Plan - in
fact, “Foreign Secretary
Ernest Bevin (1891-1951) predicted that [Marshall's] address
[defending the Marshall Plan] ‘will
rank as one of the greatest speeches in world history.’”[19aa]

So,
immediately after the Final Solution was interrupted, the US State
Department supported restoring Germany, but opposed the creation of
a state where the special victims of the German Nazis, the Jews,
could live safely. However, as we saw above, US President Harry Truman overruled the
State Department and ordered the US delegate at the UN to cast the
US vote in favor of partitioning the territory the British called
"Palestine" into two states, one Arab, one Jewish. Why?

Gideon Rafael, at the
time, was "a junior member of the Jewish delegation to the U.N.
General Assembly in 1947," and moreover "responsible for 'keeping
score' as 58 member nations voted on whether to partition
British-controlled Palestine into Jewish and Arab states."[19b]The Jerusalem Post reports his recollection of these
events:

"...it is presumed
that Moscow was primarily interested in getting the British out
of the Middle East. But there was also, [Gideon] Rafael
believes, a measure of honest sentiment involved, a sense of
identification with what the Jews had experienced in the war.
'We were some kind of companions in suffering,' says Rafael.
'Twenty million Russians had died in the war and a third of the
Jewish people. In the deliberations in the General Assembly in
the spring, (Soviet foreign minister Andrei) Gromyko had come
out with a sensational statement. He said that six million Jews
had been killed by the Nazi butchers and that the Jewish people
had a longstanding association with Palestine and the right to
independent status. I think that was an authentic sentiment. It
was policy and it helped change the course of history.'"[19a]

As Gideon Rafael says, Gromyko's speech changed the
course of history, because if the Soviet Union had not passionately
endorsed the creation of the State of Israel, Harry Truman would
have certainly followed the recommendation of his Secretary of
State, which was backed by the entire Department of State. Instead,
he was placed in an impossible position.

In the end,
though, Truman
did follow the recommendation of his Secretary of State,
when developments made it seem as though Israel would be destroyed.
I turn to this next.

The 1947
UN vote
partitioned the territory which the British, in 1921, had baptized
"Palestine" into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews living
there accepted this legally and
internationally agreed-to partition proposal. The Arabs did not. The
Arab population living in British Mandate "Palestine," under the
leadership of the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al Husseini,
declared war, as did the Arab states.
And this
was not to be just any war - the Arabs promised to finish Adolf
Hitler's job and exterminate the Jews living in the Middle East.
Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, announced:

"This will
be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be
spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."[19c]

What did the US do? It
slapped an arms embargo on "Palestine" which made it impossible for
the Jews living there to get weapons with which to defend themselves
from this genocidal attack; meanwhile, the Arabs in "Palestine" had no
trouble getting weapons from the Arab states, in addition to which
the Arab states sent their own troops. As the mayor of Tel Aviv,
Israel Rokach explained at the time,

"The embargo is
working a terrible hardship on the Jews of Palestine. It is the
Arab followers of the Mufti [Hajj Amin], and not the Jews, who
are engaged in a war of aggression, and who are defying the
United Nations."[19cc]

That is not all.
Simultaneously, Britain was doing everything in its power to help
the Arab armies.

“The first large-scale assault began on
January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish
communities in northern Palestine. By February, the British said so many
Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back. In fact,
the British turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab
Legion.

...The Arabs had no difficulty obtaining
the arms they needed. In fact, Jordan’s Arab Legion was armed and
trained by the British, and led by a British officer. At the end of 1948
and beginning of 1949, British RAF planes flew with Egyptian squadrons
over the Israel-Egypt border. On January 7, 1949, Israeli planes shot
down four of the British aircraft.”[19d]

Never mind that it was barely three years since the
Jews had finished
suffering the Nazi Final Solution; the British aid to the Arabs included
sending captured German Nazi officers to lead the Arab armies that
had openly pledged themselves to wipe out the Israeli Jews. This was demonstrated in a detailed article, which quoted official British
documents at length, and which appeared in The Nation in 1948:

In 1948, the Left-wing Nation
magazine exposed British support/instigation of Arab violence aimed at
crushing Israel in cradle

The
British Record on Partition(First part of the article)Reprinted from The Nation, May 8, 1948Comments by Jared Israel

This was
not out of character for the British, who as colonialists in the
Middle East encouraged many anti-Jewish Arab riots, by supporting,
funding, and promoting the main instigator, Hajj Amin al Husseini,
who was allowed to act with impunity. Things got so bad that "Lord
Josiah Wedgwood, a fiercely pro-Zionist Member of Parliament, would
call British-ruled Palestine 'the land of anti-Semitism par
exellence.'"[19dd]

But though
the US and British governments may have been attacking the Jews, it was
not with the consent of the American people. It's just that the US government hardly ever
does anything in foreign policy that the American people will agree
with if they are properly informed. In this case, the American
people were properly informed, and so the American workers
rushed to defend the Israeli Jews with a declaration that stated
that the following steps were "urgently" needed:

“‘A
warning by the United States to Britain to stop arming and
assisting Arab aggression.

‘A
United Nations ban on the shipment of arms from all nations to
Arab states who refuse to accept the United Nations Palestine
decision.

‘A United
Nations provision for supplying of arms and munitions to the
Jewish people for self-defense.

‘Lifting
of the State Department embargo on arms to the Middle East,
which in effect discriminates against the Jewish people while
Arab aggressors are free to obtain arms from neighboring Arab
states.’”[19d]

The composition of the
delegation making the above demands was as follows:

“The
delegation included Leon Strauss of the International Fur and
Leather Workers Union; Bruce Waybur of the United Electrical
Radio and Machine Workers of America, George Hanson of the
United Office and Professional Workers of America; Fileno De
Novellis of the United Shoe Workers, Joint Council 13; Jack
Paley of the Wholesale and Warehouse Workers Union 65, and
William Levner of the American Jewish Labor Council.”[19d]

But it was not enough
that the Arab armies were attempting to exterminate the
Israeli Jews with the help of the US and British governments. On top
of that, the US
reversed itself on its earlier position approving the partition of
"Palestine." That is, the US officially ceased to support
the creation of a Jewish state even as thousands of Jews were dying
to defend Israel and the very survival of the Jewish people.

A throng of enraged
American workers then took to the streets of New York, and forced the US
government to return to an official position endorsing the creation
of Israel. As the New York Times reported,

"...a crowd estimated
at more than 100,000 persons jammed Madison Square Park and
surrounding streets yesterday in a mass protest against the
United States reversal of its position on partition of
Palestine."[19e]

That seems like a very
large crowd. But in fact it may have been larger. Further down in
the same article, the New York Times wrote that,

"The sidewalks of
Fifth Avenue were lined solidly by a crowd estimated by the
police at 250,000. The streets surrounding the speakers' stand,
on the east side of the park, were packed so tightly that many
of the parade spectators could not crowd in. Loudspeakers
carried the talks to all corners of the square."[19e]

In any case, this was the
largest crowd ever seen in the streets of New York. And, although it
happened in New York City, it was not merely a New York phenomenon,
but an American protest, as "There were representatives of
100 cities and fourteen states in the line of the march."

The marchers -- among whom
were throngs of veterans from the World War -- were passionate:

"Banners proclaimed
"We Fought for Peace, Not Arab Appeasement." "Oil or Honor?"
"Save the U.N. - Uphold Partition." The marchers chanted "A
Jewish State in Forty-Eight," or called the cadence to the
words, "Lift, Lift, Lift the Embargo."

War-maimed veterans,
heads lifted proudly, earned applause as they passed. Many of
the marchers were in uniform - the blue of the Navy, gray green
of the Marines, khaki of the Army, and dark blue of veterans'
groups.

...[they] listened to
the denunciations of American policy on Palestine. The crowd
jeered and booed references to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem."[19e]

That's the Grand Mufti
Hajj Amin al Husseini, instigator of anti-Jewish riots in British
Mandate Palestine, and later one of the great architects of Adolf Hitler's Final Solution against the European Jews.[19f]He was well known then, but seems all but forgotten now.
That matters, because Hajj Amin was also the grandfather of Al
Fatah, the organ that controls the PLO, and the mentor to Yasser
Arafat. If ordinary Americans today understood the
Nazi origins of the PLO, they would be just as opposed to current
pro-PLO US foreign policy as their ancestors were in 1948 to the
US's -- identical -- pro-Mufti policy.

In Israel's hour of supreme need, the US allied with Israel's mortal
enemies.
____________________________________________________________

After the war
of 1947-48, the fledgling Jewish state was in bad shape and needed to reconstruct after the terrible
wartime sacrifices. But that was in fact only the first of Israel's problems. After
the war, this diminutive strip of land also had to absorb hundreds of thousands of
refugees from Nazi slaughter. And yet this was not all. In addition there
were also hundreds of thousands of
suddenly impoverished Jewish refugees from the Mizrachim Diaspora, who had
been chased out by the predominantly Muslim states of North Africa, the Arabian peninsula, and the
Near East.

And yet...,
and yet this was not all that Israel miraculously overcame. The Encyclopedia Britannica
explains that,

"In
the period 1949–53 Arab attacks killed hundreds of Israelis,
four-fifths of whom were civilians."[20]

Hundreds
of Jewish farmers living by Israel's borders were murdered by
state-sponsored Arab terrorist attacks.

Obviously, no
country that simply stood by and did nothing to help Israel while it faced
all this could call itself her ally. And this is why many people, who
believe the US has always been Israel's ally, believe also that Israel
pulled through during this critical period thanks to massive US
sponsorship. But are they right?

Notice what
the Encyclopedia Britannica writes next:

"Israel’s
potential allies, including the United States, were preoccupied with the
Cold War and were willing to placate Arab leaders in order to limit
Soviet influence among the Arab states, especially Egypt, which looked
to Moscow for help against Britain and France, the remaining colonial
powers in the region."[20]

In other
words, the US did much worse than stand by and do nothing in Israel's hour
of supreme need - it allied with Israel's mortal enemies, the same who had
just tried to exterminate the Jews in the War of Independence.

And this was not just any alliance, for
the US government sent some of the Nazis it was recruiting to create its
intelligence services [see
1945 section] to Egypt, to train the Egyptian military and
security services. The same Nazis would train in Cairo Yasser Arafat's
Fatah organization, as documented in the following piece:

The Encyclopedia Britannica therefore makes a logical error in the quote above, for it describes the
behavior of an enemy state as the behavior of a "potential
ally." This is a common error, and therefore a closer analysis of
Britannica's behavior will
help clarify why ordinary people have such a twisted understanding of US
foreign policy in the Middle East.

Why
is the Encyclopedia Britannica calling the US
a "potential ally"
of Israel?
_______________________

Would anybody
refer to Egypt as a "potential ally of Israel"? Of course not - it is
absurd to speak this way of an outright enemy. But since the US was allied
with Israel's mortal enemies, why then call it a "potential ally of
Israel" instead of what it obviously was
- an enemy state?

Apparently,
because 'everybody knows' that the US is supposed to be allied with Israel. So
the words "potential ally" communicate to the Encyclopedia's
readers that it was aberrant
or at least atypical for the US, in the years 1949 to 1953, to support those seeking the extermination
of the Israeli Jews. Britannica tries to back up its insinuation of a
'natural' US-Israeli friendship by 'explaining' that the US position supposedly resulted from
real-politick considerations made 'necessary' by the Cold War,
and thus by implication not (banish the thought!) from US enmity toward
Israel or the Jewish people.

Britannica's readers will accept this argument only if they
know nothing of the following:

1) that the
US Establishment was in good measure responsible for the rise of the
German Nazi party [see 1930's];

2) that
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's government actively and enthusiastically
cooperated with Hitler's Final Solution, even while fighting the German
Nazi armies [see 1939-45];

3) that the
US government absorbed thousands of Nazi war criminals from all over
Europe - with the blood of millions of Jews, Russians, Slavs, Gypsies, and others
on their hands - at the end of WWII in order to create US Intelligence,
even as it continued its wartime policy of denying visas to desperate
European Jews [see 1945];

4) that the
US did not help the Israeli Jews in their 1947-48 War of Independence,
but instead slapped an arms embargo on the Israeli Jews and declared it no longer supported the creation of the
State of Israel, even as Israel defended itself from the Arab armies that proudly meant to exterminate her
people [see 1947-48]; and

5) that
neither did the US condemn its close ally, Britain, for
exporting captured Nazi war criminals to serve as officers in the Arab
armies that
attacked Israel [see 1947-48].

In a world with truly independent
academic and journalistic institutions, as opposed to covertly corrupted
ones, the public would know that up to the year 1953
the US had been a major enemy of Israel, and of the Jews more generally.
Run-of-the-mill skepticism would then make it impossible for people to
accept the proposition that, in the period immediately following 1953, it
was somehow obvious that the US would be Israel's "potential
ally". However,

a) this is
not a normal world - many crucial facts have been kept from ordinary
people by a corrupt mainstream media, and corrupt academic institutions;
and, therefore,

b) ordinary
people are not normal skeptics - they routinely assume that anything in
the Encyclopedia Britannica or the New York Times (etc.) is automatically
authoritative and fair, and therefore does not deserve special scrutiny
(as it has supposedly already been scrutinized by independent and
objective historians and journalists).

Under such
circumstances, when prestigious publications repeat,
over and over again, and matter-of-factly, that the US supposedly supports
Israel, that the US is supposedly Israel's only friend, that the US
Congress is supposedly controlled by Israel, etc., etc., ordinary people
end up concluding that it's simply true:
just as the sky is the color blue and the Pope is a Catholic, the US is...
the ally of Israel! Contrary facts - such as the US's alliance during the
years 1949-53 with countries pledged to destroy Israel - will be discussed as fleeting
aberrations. Not, in other words, as evidence that a skeptic may want to put on the table in order to determine fairly
and scientifically whether or not the
US ruling elite really is an ally.

But why are the Encyclopedia
Britannica and the mass media distorting the truth in order to hide
the fact that the US ruling elite attacks the Jews? You can get a clue
by taking a look at Leslie Gelb, who is a) a high-powered US government
operative involved with US Intelligence and US foreign policy, b) a
New York Times journalist, and c) editorial advisor to the Encyclopedia
Britannica[20a]:

"Gelb was director of Policy Planning
and Arms Control for International Security Affairs at the
Department of Defense from 1967 to 1969, winning the Pentagon's
highest award, the Distinguished Service Award. Robert McNamara
appointed Gelb as director of the project that produced the
controversial Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War.

He was diplomatic correspondent at
The New York Times from 1973 to 1977.

He served as an Assistant Secretary of State in the Carter
Administration from 1977 to 1979, serving as director of the Bureau
of Politico-Military Affairs and winning the Distinguished Honor
Award, the highest award of the US State Department.

He returned to the Times in
1981; from then until 1993, he was in turn its national security
correspondent, deputy editorial page editor, editor of the Op-Ed
Page, and columnist. This
period included his leading role on the Times team that won a
Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Journalism in 1986 for a six-part
comprehensive series on the "Star Wars" Strategic Defense
Initiative).

Gelb became President of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1993
and as of 2005 is its President Emeritus."[20b]

Because
mainstream news and academic publications, as we have seen, routinely employ
Newspeak (the
reality-inverting language of Orwell's 'Big Brother', where war is peace,
freedom is slavery, and the US ruling elite is an ally of Israel), wool has been
successfully pulled over the eyes of the citizenry, preventing political
awareness. This has greatly endangered the survival of the Jewish state,
for even Israeli Jews believe the US ruling elite is on their side, and an enemy that
has not been recognized is not one that can easily be defended against.

The US forces Israel to withdraw from Sinai, but makes some
concessions to the Israelis.
____________________________________________________________

In
October 1955, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser beefed up his
military considerably with help from the Soviet Union, and then
announced a blockade of the Strait of Tiran, Israel's only port
south of Elat.

Israeli prime minister David Ben Gurion decided to act.

Since Britain and France wanted to regain the Suez Canal from Egypt,
the three countries reached an agreement under which IDF (Israeli
Defense Forces) seized
the Sinai. The British and French then invaded the canal zone under
pretext of protecting it. An infuriated Dwight D. Eisenhower forced
the British and French to withdraw. Israel also withdrew, but not
before extracting an agreement from the US to place a UN peacekeeping
force in the Sinai, and a written promise from Secretary of State John
Foster Dulles that the Strait of Tiran would be treated as a
protected, international waterway. On the face of it this looks
positive, but it is worth pointing out that the Israeli military
occupation of the Sinai is what gave Ben Gurion the bargaining
leverage to force it.[21]The US's heart was not bleeding for Israel - certainly not the heart
of John Foster Dulles, a Nazi supporter whose brother Allen Dulles had
been responsible for creating the CIA out of escaped Nazi war
criminals.[22]

Israel assists US military intervention in the Middle East; when
this places Israel in danger, the US does...nothing.
____________________________________________________________

1958
was a bad year for US and British influence in the Middle East. An
army coup in Iraq toppled the pro-Western government there, and Nasser
attempted similar subversion in pro-Western Lebanon and Jordan.

"President Eisenhower dispatched the Marines to Lebanon in order to
forestall a possible collapse of pro-Western forces there. Israel was
requested to allow British overflights for transporting troops to aid
the Hashemite regime in Jordan."

Despite the fact that the Israelis
obliged the Americans and the British, these latter

"refused to
bargain with [Israeli prime minister David] Ben-Gurion about a
military or political reward for his compliance with their
requests."

But not only that:

"when the Soviets threatened Israel
for having opened its airspace to Western forces, and Ben-Gurion,
deeply distressed, tried to cancel the permission for overflights, he
was strongly rebuked by [US Secretary of State John Foster] Dulles.
The incident pointed up Israel's fundamental weakness, and its
desperate search for allies against the threat posed by Nasser and
Nasserism - and it pointed up also the exploitative attitude of the
United States and Great Britain toward Israel..."[24]

The US abandoned its previous official policy of trying to get
Israel to relinquish the territories won in the War of Independence. Why
had it been trying to do this?
____________________________________________________________

Israeli historian Anita Shapira writes:

"It was not until 1964 that an
Israeli prime minister was officially welcomed at the White House, when
Lyndon Johnson received Levi Eshkol."[25]

This should be
terribly surprising to anybody who was assuming that the US and Israel had
been the best of friends since the founding of the state. But this is even
more surprising:

"In their joint statement at the
conclusion of the visit, Johnson proclaimed the need to maintain the
territorial integrity of all the states in the region....this was the first time
Washington abandoned the idea of changing the borders of the 1949
armistice line."

Shapira
comments,

"If even a government as friendly to
Israel as the government of the United States was not prepared during that
perilous [pre-1964] time to guarantee the 1949 borders(what today is
called the ‘Green Line’), then Israel’s situation was in truth fraught
with great danger, and Ben-Gurion’s obsession with Israel’s fragility was
not illusory."

Why does
Shapira say the United States was so friendly? The points reviewed above
in this chronology make it clear that the US had been an enemy state. Shapira's
allegation of US friendship is therefore a gratuitous apology for the
US.

It is not her
only one. Notice that she first explains with candor that in 1964
"the US abandoned the idea of changing the borders of the 1949
armistice line," which means - what? That up until then, the US had
been trying to change those borders. But then Shapira redescribes this
policy as follows: "the United States was not prepared during that
perilous [pre-1964] time to guarantee the 1949 borders." There is a
very big difference between the first statement and the second. Not agreeing to guarantee somebody else's
borders is to proclaim neutrality; trying to change Israel's 1949 borders
- what the US in fact did - was an outright attack.

Let me
explain why.

The 1947 partition line that
created Israel had produced a country that was essentially a virtually indefensible (because very narrow)
strip of coastline.[26]And yet the Israeli Jews
accepted this partition. The Palestinian Arabs did not accept and, with
the surrounding
Arab states, and aided by Britain, attacked the state of Israel and
boasted of the impending genocide of the Jews.[27]

But the Israeli
Jews stunned the world by winning the war, and they marginally thickened their narrow strip
of coastline as a result. This made it a wee bit easier
to defend. The resulting border is what Shapira calls the "1949
armistice line" and also "the Green Line."

Now, an attacked state is under no obligation to give back territory
that its enemies lost after launching an unprovoked war of aggression - especially when they made it very clear that they
meant to commit genocide and, moreover, had not abandoned this insane
goal. And the survival of the Jewish state required securing its borders
against further such attacks, which the Arab states had promised would be
forthcoming (and they made their aggressive promises entirely credible by
directing continuous terrorist attacks against Jewish farmers on Israel's
borders - see 1949-53 section).
Thus, if it was only in 1964 that "Washington abandoned the idea of
changing the borders of the 1949 armistice line," what follows? That
up until 1964 the US had been waging a diplomatic attack against Israel, attempting
to strip it of territory that Israel had legitimately won, and which was indispensable to its
defense against terrorist states pledged to the extermination of the
Jewish people.

By describing
the US's behavior in a completely different way, as a failure to guarantee
Israel's borders, Shapira is apologizing for the US.

I note that
Anita Shapira is considered a Zionist. If you are an ordinary person - i.e. not a
historian of Israel - and you come across her arguments, you will find
yourself having to choose between the following two interpretations:

a) either
Anita Shapira, an Israeli patriot, cannot reason about who Israel's
friends are, or

b) since
Anita Shapira is the historian, and you aren't, she
must know a lot more about US policies over the years, and so you take
what she says
on her implicit authority that there are other facts which mitigate the
impression of US enmity towards Israel.

Ordinary people are at a disadvantage
in terms of access to information, and they are of a respectful and generous disposition towards
figures of established authority, so they will tend to choose interpretation b.

The
documentation in this piece is meant to empower ordinary people to ask the
question: Where are those mitigating facts that supposedly establish the
friendliness of the US towards Israel? Can anybody list them?

Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors
during these years, when they staged a full-scale military provocation,
the US refused to help.
____________________________________________________________

For
years prior to the 1967 war, there were terrorists attacks against
Israeli civilians from the Jordanian and Syrian borders, while Nasser
promised an impending Arab genocide of the Jews.

"…Syria used the
Golan Heights, which tower 3,000 feet above the Galilee, to shell
Israeli farms and villages. Syria's attacks grew more frequent in
1965 and 1966, while Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly
bellicose: 'We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in
sand,' he said on March 8, 1965. 'We shall enter it with its
soil saturated in blood.'"[28]

To get an idea of
Nasser's mood and intentions immediately prior to the 1967 war,
consider this speech which the Egyptian President gave to the Arab
Trade Unionists on May 26, 1967

[Quote
From Nasser To Arab Trade Unionists Starts Here]

"If
Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle
against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on
the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and
our basic objective will be to destroy Israel. I probably could not
have said such things five or even three years ago. If I had said
such things and had been unable to carry them out my words would
have been empty and worthless.

Today,
some eleven years after 1956, I say such things because I am
confident. I know what we have here in Egypt and what Syria has. I
also know that other States Iraq, for instance, has sent its troops
to Syria; Algeria will send troops; Kuwait also will send troops.
They will send armored and infantry units. This is Arab power. This
is the true resurrection of the Arab nation, which at one time was
probably in despair."[28]

Journalist Dilip Hiro recently wrote an article about
US meddling in the Middle East, where he presents what is supposed
to be a brief history of it. His account includes the following
paragraph:

"The emergence of Israel in 1948 added a new
factor. Following its immediate recognition of Israel,
Washington devised a military-diplomatic strategy in the region
which rested on the triad of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the new
state of Israel, with the overall aim of keeping Soviet
influence out of the Middle East. While each member of the
troika was tied closely to the U.S., and links between Iran and
Israel became progressively tighter, Saudi Arabia and Israel,
though staunchly anti-Communist, remained poles apart.
Nonetheless, the overall arrangement remained in place until the
Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979."[29a]

What Dilip Hiro writes is false, of course. We have
seen (sticking only to the most significant stuff), that:

1)In the 1930s, the US
ruling class sponsored the antisemitic (among other things)
American eugenics movement, and sponsored also the rise of the
especially antisemitic German eugenics movement, which came to
be known as German "National Socialism," or Nazism.
[see section on1930s]

2)During World War II, the
United States had a visa and war policy designed to assist the
"Final Solution," as the Nazis called their extermination
program against the European Jewish population. [see section
1939-45]

3)After the war, the United
States absorbed the entire Nazi war criminal infrastructure and
out of that created US Intelligence. [see section1945]

4)In 1947, the United States
was opposed to the creation of the State of Israel and voted
"pro" in the UN only because the Soviet Union made a passionate
speech in favor of a Jewish state where this people could live
safe from genocide. [see section 1947-48]

5)During Israel's War of
Independence the United States did not help Israel. On the
contrary, the US, even as Israelis were being murdered by the
Arab armies that had promised to exterminate the Israeli Jews,
slapped an arms embargo on the Israeli Jews. For good measure,
the US government reversed itself and officially declared its opposition to
the creation of the State of Israel. This reversal was defeated
by the largest demonstration of ordinary Americans ever seen in
the streets of New York City, which was called to protest the
policy reversal. Meanwhile, Great
Britain, the United States' closest ally, was assisting the
combined Arab attempt to destroy Israel. [see section
1947-48]

6)In the period 1949-53, the
United States allied with Israel's mortal enemies during a very
difficult period in which Israel's existence was always in the
balance. [see section 1949-53]

7)Up to the year 1964 the
United States had been trying to take territory away from
Israel, and in the period 1964-1967 the US did absolutely
nothing while Israel's Arab enemies once again attempted to
destroy her (unless the US was secretly assisting these enemies).
[see section1964]

Let us now read again what journalist Dilip Hiro
wrote:

"Following its immediate recognition of Israel,
Washington devised a military-diplomatic strategy in the region
which rested on the triad of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the new
state of Israel, with the overall aim of keeping Soviet
influence out of the Middle East. ...each member of the
troika was tied closely to the U.S. ...[and] the overall
arrangement remained in place until the Islamic revolution in
Iran in 1979."

What Dilip Hiro writes is obviously
intended to feed the belief that the United States and Israel have
been supposedly joined at the hip ever since Israel was created. But
this is propaganda. Washington did not immediately
recognize Israel, and Israel was in no sense tied closely to the US.
Neither did any such alliance last until 1979 because it didn't
exist in the first place. On the contrary, Israel's existence was constantly threatened thanks
significantly to US foreign policy.

I point out that Dilip Hiro isn't nobody. He is a
veteran journalist who has written many articles over the years in
the following publications: The Observer, The New York Times, the
Weekend Australian, The Independent, The Guardian, The Washington
Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The Toronto Star.

Dilip Hiro is a big-deal journalist, and he is sold
as an expert on the Middle East.

But Dilip Hiro's propaganda is not a monopoly of the
mainstream media. The text I quoted is from an article that Dilip
Hiro wrote for TomDispatch.com, which sells itself as "a regular
antidote to the mainstream media."

After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish
the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to
Israeli defense.
____________________________________________________________

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces
from territories occupied in the recent conflict."[30]

This was simply outrageous because earlier that year - despite being
victorious after yet another genocidal provocation - Israeli prime
minister Levi Eshkol had immediately offered Israel's Arab enemies
to take back these territories on condition that they promise never to
attack Israel again. The Arabs refused.[31]

You
read correctly: that's all the Israelis were
asking, and nothing like this -- not even remotely like it -- has ever
happened in the history of warfare. Never before has a victorious
state, after defending itself against an attack, and winning
territory, offered to give it back in exchange for a promise of peace.
And that's without mentioning that the attack was an attempted
genocide [see section 1964-67].

But the
Arabs refused!

Given this, how could the UN Security Council now
demand that Israel
return these territories? That was simply absurd, not to mention
immoral. The US could have used its veto power in the Security Council
to stop this resolution, but didn't.

Matters, however, are worse, because according to
University of Pennsylvania political science professor Ian Lustick,
the US has adopted Resolution 242 as its official policy.

"[US] policy, in some sense, has stayed, in a
formal way, more or less where it’s always been, which is not a
bad place. That is, officially, we believe that there ought to
be a solution based on
Resolution 242, which seems to suggest almost complete Israeli
withdrawal from the territories, except for mutually agreed changes."[31a]

That was said in 2002. It is likely that Ian Lustick
knows what he is talking about on this point, because he works
for US Intelligence.[31b]

But the most important point
here is that this policy of the United States is one that the US pursues
even though it knows it will prepare the ground for the destruction of
Israel. The demonstration follows.

Immediately after the 1967
Six Day War, a Memorandum for the [US] Secretary of Defense that had
for subject “Middle East Boundaries,” and signed by Earle G.
Wheeler, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was submitted. It
said:

“From a
strictly military point of view Israel would require the retention of
some captured Arab territory in order to provide militarily defensible
borders.”[31c]

This study was quite
specific, explaining that Israel needed to hold most of the West
Bank because,

“This border area
[along the Jordanian West Bank] has traditionally been lightly
held by military forces and defenses consist[ing] mainly of
small, widely separated outposts and patrols and, therefore,
afforded an area where launching of saboteurs and terrorists
into Israel was relatively easy...”[31c]

On the Syrian border,

“Israel must hold the
commanding terrain east of the boundary of 4 June 1967 which
overlooks the Galilee area.”[31c]

This is a reference to the
Golan Heights, from which the Syrians had been shelling Israeli
farmers in the Galilee, as we saw above (see 1964-67
section).
The Pentagon study concurs: “During
the period January 1965 to February 1967, a total of 28 sabotage and
terrorist acts occurred along this border.”

Concerning Jerusalem, the
Pentagon study states that

“To defend the
Jerusalem area would require that the boundary of Israel be
positioned to the east of the city to provide for the
organization of an adequate defensive position.”[31c]

And about the Gaza strip,
the Pentagon study states that,

“The Strip, under
Egyptian control, provides a salient into Israel a little less
than 30 miles long and from four to eight miles wide. It has
served as a training area for the Palestine Liberation Army...
Occupation of the Strip by Israel would reduce the hostile
border by a factor of five and eliminate a source for raids and
training of the Palestine Liberation Army.”[31c]

Now, since the surrounding Arab
states have remained pledged to destroy Israel, these
territories are absolutely indispensable as a buffer against the next
attack. But this is the territory from which the US, in its official
policy, as Ian Lustick explains, would like Israel completely to
withdraw from. What would be the effect of such a withdrawal? That
Israel would become vulnerable once again to a combined Arab attack, as
the 1967 Pentagon study quoted here makes clear (so it is not as if the US mistakenly thinks that Israel can defend
itself without these territories).

If the US wants Israel to
withdraw from territories that, according to the same US, Israel
absolutely needs in order to protect itself from its antisemitic and
genocidal enemies, can the US be an ally of Israel?

The Arabs attack the Israelis. The US response is to try and remove
the Israelis from territory they need for their defense.
____________________________________________________________

What became known as the War of
Attrition began as early as 1967 with Egyptian shelling of Israeli
positions near the Suez Canal. It was a costly war that took the
lives of 1,424 Israeli soldiers and more than 100 civilians, there
were also another 2000 soldiers and 700 civilians wounded.

The United States worked to reward
the Egyptians by pushing for a cease-fire and negotiations that
would lead to an Israeli withdrawal. But Egypt violated the
cease-fire. "Despite the Egyptian violations, the UN-sponsored talks
resumed... The talks were swifly short-circuited, however, by UN
Special Envoy Gunnar Jarring, when he accepted the Egyptian
interpretation of Resolution 242 and called for Israel's total
withdrawal to the pre-June 5, 1969, demarcation lines."[32]

In
1969-70 the US proposed the Rogers Plan, after Richard Nixon's
Secretary of State William Rogers. The point of this plan was, among other outrages, to
enforceUN Resolution 242,
which called for
Israeli withdrawal from the territories that a Pentagon study (see1967 section)
had identified as indispensable
to Israeli defense!

The Israelis were naturally
dead set against this, and on December 22, 1969, Israel's
cabinet
formally rejected the Rogers Plan. However Israel's hand was
forced by the
fact that the Soviets were heavily involved with Egypt's
attack. "[W]hen Israeli fighter planes shot down four Egyptian planes
flown
by Soviet pilots..., [f]earing Soviet retaliation, and
uncertain of
American support, Israel in August accepted a cease-fire and
the
application of Resolution 242."[33]

Caveat: "In a
[apparently non-binding] vote in the US Congress in 1970, 70 Senators
[70%] and 280 Representatives [64%] rejected Secretary of State
Rogers' peace plan as being too one-sided against Israel."[34]

Washington temporarily abandons the diplomatic effort to make Israel
withdraw from the territories.
____________________________________________________________

In
1970 Jordan's King Hussein led a punishing attack against the PLO
terrorists who had taken over the areas of Jordan bordering Israel,
from which they committed terrorist outrages not only against Israeli
civilians but also Jordanian civilians and foreigners.[35]This led to great tensions with Syria, but Syria did not invade
Jordan, apparently to avoid a conflict with Israel. "It was widely
believed in Washington that deployment of Israeli troops along the
Jordan River had deterred a large-scale Syrian invasion of Jordan. As
a result, President Richard M. Nixon increasingly viewed Israel as an
important strategic asset, and the Rogers Plan was allowed to die."[36]

Caveat: Notice again,
however, that this had nothing to do with the US caring about Israel.
The deeply anti-Israel Rogers Plan was abandoned only when the US
discovered strategic reasons to support Israel against Soviet client
states such as Syria, and to protect its own client state, Jordan.
And, as we've seen above [see 1967 section],
the Rogers plan was not, in fact, really allowed to die. US
official policy has always been the implementation of UN
Resolution 242, which was the core of the Rogers Plan.

The US assisted Israel in the Yom Kippur War
____________________________________________________________

The
Yom Kippur war of 1973 was a joint surprise attack by Egypt
and Syria
that caught the Israelis unprepared. They were facing
catastrophe, and
turned to the US. The Americans at first were reluctant, but
"Washington's reluctance to help Israel changed rapidly when the
Soviet Union launched its own resupply effort to Egypt and
Syria."[37]

Caveat: Notice that the
US was reluctant to help, and did not intervene until its
prestige in the Cold War context was threatened by the involvement of
the Soviets on the other side.

When
Zionist Jews, grateful for the support Israel supposedly gets from the
US, wish to defend the argument that the US is a friend, they can only
mention three substantive points.

1)
the war of 1973

2)
the financial aid Israel gets from the US (only a bit more than what
Egypt gets), and

3)
the weapons Israel gets from the US (less than what Saudi Arabia
gets; see 1979 section).

That's
all one can list. We see here that one should not consider US
help in 1973 as a sign of 'friendship' or alliance. The US was just
making Cold War moves, and this one turned out to be convenient. When
such moves are not convenient, the US goes right back to attacking
Israel.

Further
below I will address the issues of financial and military aid, and
I will show that these, too, are mirages.

The US supported the election of a pro-PLO Nazi war criminal to the
post of UN Secretary General.
____________________________________________________________

Immediately after the Arab defeat of
1973, “the heads of state present” at the Arab League summit
convened in Algiers on 26-28 November 1973, “recognized the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the only representative
of the Palestinian people.”[37a]
They had decided that defeating Israel required a new strategy, so the push began to demand the creation
of a 'Palestinian' state in the West Bank, led by someone who could be
counted on never to stop until he had exterminated the Jews: Yasser
Arafat. In 1974 the governing body of the PLO, the Palestine National
Council, produced the 'Plan of Phases,' a Trojan Horse strategy that
would promise peace in return for allowing the PLO into the Jewish
State.[37b]

Arafat had been mentored by the Mufti Hajj Amin, one of the
top leaders of Hitler's Final Solution, who bequeathed to his
protégé an Islamist and antisemitic genocidal ideology. Veteran's
of the Mufti's terrorist Arab Higher Committee helped form
Arafat's al Fatah organization, which, by 1970 had swallowed the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO - formed in 1964), while
keeping its name.[38]Arafat's movement, therefore, is essentially an unbroken link in a chain of
genocide, a direct extension of Hitler's Final Solution. A state led
by Arafat's terrorist organization could be armed to the teeth by other Arab states, thus
resuming the charge to destroy Israel and exterminate the Jews.

That
this demand for a Palestinian state represented a strategy by the
Arab states to extend their genocidal attacks against Israel
through other means is quite obvious. In fact, they began pushing the
idea in 1969 over the objections of none other than Yasser Arafat, on
whose behalf they were supposedly doing this![39]Arafat evidently felt this new strategy of extermination was too slow,
and he didn't pronounce himself dramatically and publicly in favor until 1977.[40]

The
problem here was political: in order to get international pressure on
Israel to allow a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the Palestinians
had to be presented as victims. How to do this? It was not easy
because the Israeli occupation was quite benign, despite the fact that
the acquired territories were inhabited by an enemy population that
had supported a genocidal war against Israeli Jews in 1967.[41]

So presenting Palestinians as
'victims' required defining 'oppression' as the absence of a Palestinian state, and blaming
this absence on the Israelis, never minding (1) that the Palestinian
Arabs had refused the UN partition creating such a state in 1947[19]; (2)
that the Jordanians, who had illegally occupied the West Bank in
1948 had not bothered to create a "Palestinian" Arab state by 1967; and
3) that the Arab states refused Israel's offer to take back the
lands lost in 1967 in return for a promise of peace (see1967 section).

The first salvo
attacking Israel for having had to defend itself [!] was, as we saw,
UN Resolution
242, which was passed immediately after the Arab defeat
of 1967. Then, as the campaign for a PLO state gathered steam
in the 1970s, two new attacks from the UN. The first was in 1974, when
Yasser Arafat, the genocidal antisemite and protegé of a leading Nazi
war criminal, was invited to give a speech to the UN General Assembly,
and was received with the protocols of a chief of state [!].[42]The second came a year later when the UN passed Resolution 3379 which
equated Zionism with racism [!].[43]

It was a Nazi war criminal, Kurt Waldheim, who presided over both
these events as UN Secretary General.[44]

This
was the Nazis celebrating the Nazis, using their control of the
highest world forum to attack the Jews.

Accusations that Waldheim was
a Nazi war criminal were made at the time.[45]Did US officials know that Kurt Waldheim was a Nazi war criminal?
But of course. As the New Republic explained in 1986, Waldheim
participated in

"...the ‘Kozara Massacres’ [which] took place on West Bosnia
(now Yugoslavia), under the command of General Friedrich Stahl.
In the campaign 71 Germans died, 5,000 of the enemy were killed
(including many noncombatants), and 12,000 taken prisoner. In a
‘cleansing operation’ afterward, hundreds of peasants were shot.
Sixty-eight thousand [68,000] local inhabitants, including
23,000 children, were taken away to be murdered at the local
concentration camp of
Jasenovac."[51a]

For
his exertions in this massive slaughter of innocent Serbs, Jews, and
Roma (Gypsies), Kurt Waldheim was given the Zvonimir medal by the
Ustashe Croatian fascists, an honor “awarded to only three German
officers - out of some 20,000 German soldiers in that campaign.”

The
above is but a portion, and it would take us too far afield to list
here the entire criminal dossier of this man, but the point is that
Waldheim was a well-known Nazi exterminator. It would be entirely
remarkable if US Intelligence, which was created by absorbing tens
of thousands of Nazi war criminals (see 1945 section),
didn't know who Kurt Waldheim was. So the US ruling elite had to
know what it was doing when, on the eve of Waldheim's
becoming UN Secretary General,

"George Bush, the American [UN] delegate, issued a statement
saying that Mr. Waldheim was 'ideally equipped' for the job."[51b]

That was George Bush Sr., and he
likely knew precisely who Waldheim was when he said that because he
was already connected with the CIA.[45a]
Shortly thereafter, Bush would become Director of
the CIA, and later president of the United States.

In fact the US ruling elite liked Waldheim so
much that they later lobbied passionately to get him a third term at the
UN (blocked by China).[46]
Doesn't that suggest, then, that the policy of demonization of
Israel in order to create a PLO state was not only an Arab and
UN policy, but
also a US policy?

The US reached an agreement with Israel not to have contacts with
the PLO. The US immediately violated the agreement.
____________________________________________________________

In 1975
the US
reached an agreement with Israel not to have any contact with the PLO.
However, in 1981 the New York Times wrote that,

"In fact, however,
the Central Intelligence Agency has for several years maintained and
occasionally used a little publicized, so-called 'back-channel'
line of communications with P.L.O. headquarters in Beirut."[47]

The word
'several' corresponds
very well to the number of years
that had gone by since the agreement: six. It appears, therefore, that
the US violated its agreement with Israel immediately after signing
it - but definitely by 1977, as we shall see below.

The
New York Times also explains the methods the CIA used to circumvent
this agreement.

"The Central Intelligence Agency regularly employs private
contractors. In recent years, the State Department has used
private intermediaries with the Palestine Liberation
Organization, the Government having promised Israel not to deal
officially with the P.L.O."[47a]

Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a
'government in exile,' and then he teamed up with the Soviets to
try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state next door.
____________________________________________________________

A busy
year.

The UN strategy to demonize Israel and make the PLO appear
respectable had worked beautifully, so that by 1977 a young West Bank
Palestinian interviewed by Newsweek could say: "Unlike ten years
ago, we now have the sympathy of the entire world."[48]The world's political climate having thus shifted to the degree
necessary, US president Jimmy Carter, choosing his moment carefully,
declared publicly his support for a "Palestinian homeland." This is
what the New York Times reported on May 13, 1977:

“[Congress] watches, with a mixture of admiration
and doubt, Jimmy Carter’s efforts to reassure the Israelis while
trying to get them back to the pre-1967 borders with a new
Palestinian ‘homeland’ on their flank.”[48a]

It is certainly of some interest that the US president came out in
favor of a PLO state (what 'Palestinian homeland' has always meant)
before the PLO ever supported the idea. In fact, before the
US president's announcement of his support for a 'Palestinian
homeland,' the PLO had been the staunchest opponent of a PLO
state in the West Bank and Gaza! This is worth a short detour.

Consider this note from 1969:

“… recent rejection by Al Fatah representative of
all plans to establish Palestinian state on Jordan West Bank and
in Gaza Strip noted; Palestinian National Council member Dr S
Dabbagh urges commandos to prepare now for strategy they will
follow if Arab states accept political settlement.”[48b]

Al Fatah is the dominant faction within the PLO - it
calls all the shots. The Palestinian National Council is the
legislative body of the PLO. Thus, what we have above is a total
rejection by the PLO, in 1969, of a PLO state in the West Bank.

In 1970, after the PLO caused a civil war in Jordan, the
issue of giving the PLO a state in the West Bank was again
discussed. Again, the PLO said no, as reported in the New York
Times:

"There has been speculation that the
establishment of a Palestinian state in Jordan's west-bank
territory, now under Israeli occupation, might be raised as a
solution for the Palestinians. Any discussion of this issue here
[in Egypt] with Mr. Arafat, however, has been secret. The
commando chief has publicly criticized the proposal."[48g]

Why didn't the PLO want its own state in the West
Bank?

The answer to that question will be found in the PLO
Charter - or perhaps I should say charters (plural) as there
have been two. The first charter dates from 1964, and in article 24
it states:

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise
any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.[48c]

The PLO went out of its way, as you can see above, to
state that the West Bank and Gaza (1) were not "Palestinian" lands,
(2) belonged rightfully to Jordan and Egypt, respectively, and (3)
were of no interest to the PLO. In 1968, however, the PLO Charter
was rewritten and this is the charter that remains current to this
day. This second charter states the following in its first two
articles:

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab
Palestinian people.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the
British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.[48d]

The boundaries of the territory called "Palestine"
during the British Mandate included the West Bank and Gaza,
plus the rest of present day Israel.[48e]This means that in the 1968 Charter, the PLO did now begin
claiming the West Bank and Gaza as "Palestinian" lands. Why the
abrupt 180-degree reversal? Because the year before, in 1967, after
the surrounding Arab states had provoked a war with the goal of
exterminating the Israeli Jews, the Israelis had emerged victorious,
and had captured the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

In other words, there is no such thing as a fixed "Palestinian land" as far
as the PLO is concerned; there is just land that Jews live on.
Since the Jews returned to live in the West Bank and Gaza after
1967, these territories - which the PLO had explicitly maintained it
had nothing to do with - suddenly became of great interest to the
PLO and were called for the first time "Palestinian" by the PLO.
This is easily explained, because the PLO's purpose is to
exterminate the Israeli Jews, as specified most explicitly in the
PLO Charter.[48f]This is why Article 9 of the 1968 charter says that “armed struggle
is the only way to liberate Palestine.” In other words, wherever
Jews live in the Middle East, the PLO will claim that this is
"Palestinian" land that has to be liberated exclusively by
killing Jews. Any appearance that the PLO is conducting peaceful
negotiations is merely a front [see
2005 section].

So, the reason the PLO was for a long time reluctant to join the
call for a PLO state is that the tactical and temporary abandonment
of a policy to kill all the Jews in the Middle East was a bitter
pill to swallow for an organization that was in a big hurry to
complete the ecstatic extermination that is its mission.

None of this, of course, was a secret to US President
Jimmy Carter. The Arab states,
since 1969, had been pushing for a PLO state in the West Bank and
Gaza. And after the Arab defeat in the 1973 war, Arafat had
promulgated in 1974 his "Plan of Phases", “according to which the
Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] would acquire whatever
territory it could by negotiations, then use that land as a base for
pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation.”[48h]

So this is the context in which Jimmy Carter announced his
support for a "Palestinian homeland" in 1977. In other words, the US
president had to know that his statement would be interpreted
as support for a PLO state, and he knew also that such a state would
be dedicated to the extermination of the Israeli Jews.

And how interesting that the PLO, less than
a week after the announcement by the US President, followed suit
and declared itself for the first time in support of a West
Bank PLO state.

"PLO spokesman Mahmoud Labady says PLO views Pres
Carter's concept of Palestinian homeland as important
contribution to 'just and durable' peace in Middle East… Says
PLO would agree to establishment of Palestinian state on West
Bank and in Gaza Strip…"[49]

Of course, this did not mean that the PLO was
abandoning its goal of destroying Israel.[50] It meant only that,
following the US president's lead, it was shifting tactics. But how come
the US president and the PLO leadership appeared so coordinated,
announcing their new positions within a week of each other?
Were they working
together through that back channel that the New York times talks about
(see above)?

Two
months later, on July 22, as if to grease the wheels of the claim just
endorsed by the American president, "Yasir Arafat's Palestine
Liberation Organization became the first nonstate ever granted
membership in a United Nations organization... The PLO [now] has
observer status in the United Nations itself."[51]

To give a terrorist organization the status of a government at
the UN is an outrage. But the UN does not commit outrages like this
left and right. The Tamil Tigers, for example, do not have a seat at
the UN. Neither does Al Qaeda. So the UN was careful to honor the
terrorist organization that needed to be legitimized in order to
destroy Israel.

The US
appeared to be on Israel's side when it denounced the elevation of
the PLO to the status of a government at the UN. Was it?

You
may answer that question for yourself. The man inducting the PLO into the UN,
which policy the US government officially said it opposed, was Nazi
war criminal Kurt Waldheim. But this is the same Waldheim for whom
the US government had lobbied, saying that he was perfect for the
top UN job, even though it knew perfectly well who Waldheim was [see 1974-75 section].
So one can certainly be suspicious that the US government's official
opposition to UN membership for the PLO was hypocritical.

Our
suspicion is rewarded. Underneath
the surface, the US was playing a very different game. Two days before the
US protested, alongside Israel, that the PLO was being inducted into the UN, it had already been reported that the
Carter administration and the PLO were "involved in secret
high-level contacts."[52]And just one week later, on August 2:

"Reports
in the state-controlled Egyptian news media said the Americans were suggesting that the Palestinians form a government
in exile as one way of making themselves eligible for [the] Geneva
[peace conference]. The argument, the reports said, was that the
Palestine Liberation Organization can not now be invited because it
does not represent a state."[53](my emphasis)

So what
happened is this:

Loudly, the US government said,
"no to government
status for the PLO at the UN." Much more quietly, it said, "yes to
government status for the PLO so it can negotiate for a Palestinian
state at Geneva." Since it was the UN that organized the Geneva
peace conference, and since a state run by the PLO would allow the PLO
a seat at the UN anyway, the second American statement exactly denies the
first.[54]Hmm... When the US's loud public barks and its cupped-hand whispers
to the side contradict each other, guess which is the real policy?
Read on...

Things
were moving fast. Less than a week later, on August 8, the US was said
to be

"anxious over [the] Israeli refusal to accept 2 Arab
pre-conditions to [the Geneva peace] conf[erence], including
relinquishment of most of the territory occupied since [the] '67
war, and acknowledgement of right for existence of some kind of
Palestinian state."[55]

And just a month after that, on September 18, the US State Dept.
announced that

"Palestinians [i.e. the PLO] should be involved in
[the] peacemaking process at Geneva... [The] Israeli press [saw these]
US moves and comments as leaning towards establishment of [a] separate
Palestinian state, anathema to most Israelis."[56]

Clearly, the US wanted a PLO state on
the territory Israel had gained in 1967, despite the fact that a
Pentagon study had already concluded this would mean the destruction
of Israel [see 1967 section]. US
diplomacy, with the prestige of a world power that supposedly defends
democracy, was teaching people everywhere a lesson about what they
ought to see as just and fair. People learned that it was just and
fair for the Arab states to demand a Palestinian state run by a
genocidal antisemitic terrorist in strategic Israeli territory in return for
-- for what? In return
for an Arab promise to cease attacking Israel with the goal of
exterminating the Jews, as they had done in 1967.

You may pop your eyes back into your
head, if you can find them. If it
looks like an absurdity, and walks like an absurdity... (And if it
looks like a US attack on Israel, and walks like a US attack on
Israel...)

But the
US was not quite done. Two weeks later, on October 1st, the US and the
USSR published the "Joint U.S.-Soviet statement on the Middle
East," stating their joint position in matters relating to the
proposed Geneva peace conference.[57]This called for negotiating with the PLO to create a Palestinian state
if the PLO accepted UN Resolution 242 (which resolution was an outrage
against the Israelis [see 1967 section]), and if they accepted Israel's right to
exist.

Israel then went into high gear and "Israeli leaders... made
strenuous efforts to realign Israel's policy with that of the United
States." They had to, because in reaching an agreement with the
Soviet Union that the PLO should govern a Palestinian state in the
West Bank, the US had neglected to consult its supposed ally, Israel.
The US had tried to pull a fast one. Vigorous negotiations by Israeli
Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan in New York yielded the Israel-US working
paper on Geneva on October 5.

"In this paper, Israel in effect
rejected the U.S.-Soviet statement, insisted on Resolution 242 as the
basis for talks but said that 242 did not mean territorial withdrawal;
the PLO was not mentioned and there would be no Palestinian state."[58]

In other words, Dayan's emergency diplomacy prevented the disaster
that the US had deceitfully, and in collusion with the Soviet Union,
tried to bring on Israel.

The US
is supposed to be a friend. But wouldn't an enemy of Israel try hard
to set up a Palestinian state run by a genocidal terrorist whose
movement is
an extension of the Final Solution? And wouldn't an
enemy use deception to get other powerful states (the Arabs,
the USSR) to gang up on tiny Israel?

When
people excuse the US's dirty tricks in foreign policy, they
usually do
so by saying that it was supposedly necessary to fight the
Cold War.
Now they say it is necessary to fight the supposed war on
terrorism.
The US has always cultivated an image that opposes both
terrorists and
communists. Here, however, neither explanation could work.
This was
done on behalf of the PLO terrorists and it was done in
collusion with
the communist Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union. In other
words, even the
pretense of opposing terrorists, and the fight against the
comunists, are both abandoned when it comes to Israel, because attacking
Israel is apparently more important than all that!

So how is the behavior of the US
different from that of an enemy of Israel?

When Israel tried to defend itself from the PLO terrorists, the US
forced Israel to stand back
____________________________________________________________

The PLO
was killing Israeli civilians from its bases in southern Lebanon, so
Israel invaded southern Lebanon in 1978.

The United States reaction?

“In June 1978, Prime Minister [Menachem] Begin, under intense
American pressure, withdrew Israel's Litani River Operation
forces from southern Lebanon… The withdrawal of Israeli troops
without having removed the PLO from its bases in southern
Lebanon became a major embarrassment to the Begin government…”[58a]

Keep
in mind that the US invaded Panama on the official grounds that
one American soldier had been killed. But when scores of Israeli
civilians were being murdered by the PLO terrorists, the US would
not allow Israel to protect itself.

The
Carter administration began an effort, in tandem with the Islamist
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the Islamist president of Pakistan (Zia
ul Haq), to fund an Islamist terrorist force in Afghanistan, which
effort Reagan later intensified.[59]The point of this was to suck the Soviet Union into a quagmire, and it
succeeded. One of the consequences of this policy was that these
Islamist terrorists spawned an international underground mercenary
movement known as the 'mujahedin,' as well as international terrorist
organizations that mobilize Muslim hatred of Jews, such as Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda.

Carter
also began at this time a secret buildup of Saudi Arabia's military,
which Reagan also continued, and which made this country

"ultimately...the largest beneficiary of U.S. weapons sales in the
entire world [and] one of the most heavily armed countries in the
world."[60]

We are speaking, of course, of the country that funds the Palestinian
extremists and which stirs antisemitic Islamism all over the globe; a
country whose minister of the interior is charged with looking after
the health of the Palestinian terrorist movement;[61]a country whose government-sponsored clerics daily recommend the
slaughter of Jews in their sermons.[62]\

The year after this US military
buildup of Saudi Arabia began, Saudi King Fahd explained in public
what he meant by jihad:

“In 1980, King Fahd of Saudi
Arabia gave a clear definition: ‘What is meant by jihad is a
united, comprehensive, integrated Arab-Islamic confrontation in
which we place all our resources and our spiritual, cultural,
political, material and military potential in a long and
untiring ‘Holy War’ against Israel, of course, who else?’”[62a]

Given that the US has made this
country "the largest beneficiary of U.S. weapons sales in the entire
world," whose side is the US on? Israel's? Some
will say, "But Saudi Arabia is buying its weapons; this is not a US
handout." Yes, however, there is no such thing as 'just business,'
here, because the Saudis mean to destroy Israel. If you call
yourself my friend and you sell a gun to someone you know has been
hired to kill me, the fact that the hired assassin paid for the gun
will not work as a defense for your behavior.

Others
will say, "But the US ruling elite is doing this for cheap oil."
Emperor's Clothes has produced much analysis to show that US foreign
policy is not conducted primarily to obtain cheap oil, as many claim.[62b]But even if we were to accept the "it's for oil" hypothesis, we are
left with the fact that the US ruling elite wants cheap oil badly
enough to turn itself into an effective enemy of Israel, arming more
than any other country in the world a state committed to the
extermination of the Israeli Jews. Whether or not the US ruling elite
produces a policy out of a specific animosity against the Israeli
Jews or because of some other interest, the question that matters
is this: What are the material consequences - for Israel - of US
foreign policy? If the consequences of this policy are that
Israel ends up destroyed, will it matter if the US did it to get
cheap oil?

Something else that happened in the
year 1979 is that Jimmy Carter set in
motion the Iranian 'hostage crisis,' partly in order to raise the
prestige of the PLO:

Footnotes and Further
Reading____________________________________________________________

[1]"How IBM Helped Automate
the Nazi Death Machine in Poland," by Edwin Black; Author of "IBM
and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and
America's Most Powerful Corporation"
Reprinted from Village Voice, Week of March 27 - April 2, 2002http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ibm.htm

"[George W.] Bush's family knew a lot about the
Nazis. And guess what? Far from being enraged by Hitler's ambitions, they
actively endorsed them. GW's grandfather, Prescott, was married to the
daughter of George Herbert Walker, president of the Union Banking
Corporation. Through this organisation, both men helped German
industrialists consolidate Hitler's political power. In 1942, the
Roosevelt administration seized all the corporation's shares, including
those held by Prescott Bush (by now a board member) under the Trading With
The Enemy Act. The government made clear that huge sections of this
business had operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted
its war effort."

Apologists for Prescott Bush will say, for example, that
"Bush had [only] one share" in the Union Banking Corp., and that
"The documents do not show any evidence Bush directly aided that
effort [to assist the Nazis]." This suggests to the reader that
Prescott Bush is guilty only if his aid to the Nazis brought him
considerable profits in the form of dividends from his shares, and
suggests also that to blame him for helping the Nazis we need to find his
fingerprint in these particular documents! But why? The Bank was involved
in helping the Nazis in a significant way, and "Prescott Bush was one
of seven directors of Union Banking Corp." [All the quotes in this
paragraph taken from: "Bush Ancestor's Bank Seized by Gov't"; By
Jonathon D. Salant; Associated Press; Friday 17 October 2003]

[1b]“Henry
Ford, who was so impressed by the efficient way meat packers
slaughtered and dismantled animals in Chicago, made his own unique
contribution to the slaughter of people in Europe. Not only did he
develop the assembly-line method that Germans used to kill Jews, but
he launched a vicious anti-Semitic campaign that helped make the
Holocaust happen.

In the
early 1920s Ford’s weekly newspaper, the Dearborn Independent,
published a series of articles based on the text of
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic tract that
had been circulating in Europe. Ford published a book-length
compilation of the articles entitled The International Jew, which
was translated into most of the European languages and was widely
disseminated by anti-Semites, chief among them the German publisher
Theodor Fritsch, an early supporter of Hitler. Thanks to a
well-financed publicity campaign and the prestige of the Ford name,
The International Jew was hugely successful both domestically and
internationally.
The
International Jew found its most receptive audience in Germany where
it was known as The Eternal Jew. Ford was enormously popular in
Germany. When his autobiography went on sale there, it immediately
became the country’s number one bestseller. In the early 1920s The
Eternal Jew quickly became the bible of the German anti-Semitism,
with Fritsch’s publishing house printing six editions between 1920
and 1922.

After Ford’s book came to the attention of Hitler in Munich, he used a
shortened version of it in the Nazi propaganda war against the Jews
of Germany. In 1923 a Chicago Tribune correspondent in Germany
reported that Hitler’s organization in Munich was ‘sending out Mr.
Ford’s books by the carload.’ Baldur von Schirach, the leader of the
Hitler Youth movement and the son of an aristocratic German father
and American mother, said at the postwar Nuremberg war crimes trial
that he became a convinced anti-Semite at age seventeen after
reading The Eternal Jew. ‘You have no idea what a great influence
this book had on the thinking of German youth. The younger
generation looked with envy to symbols of success and prosperity
like Henry Ford, and if he said the Jews were to blame, why
naturally we believed him.’

Hitler
regarded Ford as a comrade-in-arms and kept a life-sized portrait of
him on the wall next to his desk in his office in Munich. In 1923
when Hitler heard that Ford might run for President of the United
States, he told an American reporter, ‘I wish that I could send some
of my shock troops to Chicago and other big American cities to help
in the elections. We look to Heinrich Ford as the leader of the
growing Fascist movement in America. We have just had his
anti-Jewish articles translated and published. The book is being
circulated in millions throughout Germany.’ Hitler praised Ford in
Mein Kampf, the only American to be singled out. In 1931, when a
Detriot News reporter asked Hitler what Ford’s portrait on the wall
meant to him, Hitler said, ‘I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration.’

In 1938, on the occasion
of his seventy-fifth birthday, Henry Ford, the great admirer of the
efficient way they slaughtered and cut up animals in America,
accepted the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle,
the highest honor Nazi Germany could bestow on a foreigner
(Mussolini was one of the three other foreigners to be so honored).”

[4] "Report to the Secretary
on the Acquiescence of this Government in the Murder of the Jews,"
initialed by Randolph Paul for the Foreign Funds Control Unit of the
Treasury Department, January 13, 1944.

[8] Entry from Assistant
Secretary of State Breckinridge Long's diary in which he notes that
President Roosevelt supports his policy of encouraging consulates to
"postpone and postpone and postpone" the granting of
visas. From: "The War Diary of Breckinridge Long"; ed.
Fred L. Israel; University of Nebraska Press, 1966.

[9] A report written by Adoph
Held, the president of the American Jewish Labor Committee
recounting President Roosevelt's 29-minute meeting on December 8,
1942 with a small delegation of American Jewish Leaders.

[18a] In his history of the eugenics movement, Edwin Black
(2003:215) points out that “Winston Churchill [was] an enthusiastic
supporter of eugenics.” That's the same eugenics movement out
of which came the German Nazi party.

Winston Churchill was also a
class warrior who was irrevocably against giving
women, and men without property, the right to vote (‘universal
suffrage’):
“‘We
already have enough ignorant voters,’ he remarked, ‘and don’t want
any more’”
(Addison 2005:50). And he thought a good way
to solve labor problems was to shoot striking workers dead. Here’s an example, as explained by Churchill’s
biographer Paul Addison, from the period when Winston Churchill was
Home Secretary:

“During the summer of
1911, when strikes in the docks spread to the railways, [Winston
Churchill] was seized by a nightmare vision... Overriding the
local authorities, he dispatched troops to many parts of the
country and gave army commanders discretion to employ them. When
rioters tried to prevent the movement of a train at Llanelli,
troops opened fire and shot two men dead. Churchill’s blood was
up and when Lloyd George intervened to settle
the strike Churchill telephoned him to say that it would have
been better to go on and give the strikers ‘a good thrashing.’”
(Addison 2005:54)

Winston Churchill is also
on record stating that ‘whites’ can exterminate ‘non-whites’ with
impunity:

"I do not admit, for
instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of
America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a
wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger
race, a higher grade race, or at any rate, a more worldly-wise
race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
(quoted in Addison 2005:137)

With the above for
context, one is not exactly surprised to find that Churchill, “In
February 1933,” which is the same year that Adolf Hitler became
German chancellor, “…praised [Italian fascist leader Benito]
Mussolini…as ‘the greatest lawgiver among living men’” (Addison
2005:140). Nor is one surprised to find Churchill’s biographer Paul
Addison admitting that “With fascism as such…he had no quarrel” (ibid.).
But Addison is understating matters here, and a quick glance at some
of Churchill’s behaviors is enough to make one wonder whether World
War II will not perhaps deserve a different interpretation from the
one traditionally given.

As Addison explains, in
1927 Churchill led a cabinet revolt and thereby derailed an
agreement that the United States had been seeking with Britain to
allow expansion of the American navy (ibid. pp.126-127).
Churchill sprang this stunt, mind you, when the British
representatives at the conference had already agreed to sign. This
was an obstacle to the further spectacular enrichment of American
steel magnate Charles M. Schwab, because it was Schwab who would be
providing the steel for an expanded American navy. But he could not
exactly be sore with Churchill, who in his earlier capacity as WWI
British Minister of Munitions had enriched Schwab spectacularly by
placing orders with him (ibid. p.128).

Two years later Schwab
would have an opportunity to demonstrate that, indeed, he was not
sore at Churchill. You see, in 1929 Winston Churchill ended up ‘on
the street,’ so to speak: “The Conservative government was defeated
in 1929, and Churchill, now out of office, was in need of income.
…[He] was now increasingly dependent on his writing and public
speaking to sustain his lifestyle,” as explained in a a Library of
Congress exhibit on Churchill that may be inspected here:http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/churchill/wc-affairs.html

For Churchill this was a
vexing problem indeed because “his lifestyle” can only be described
as royally extravagant, but as chance would have it Charles M.
Schwab just now invited the unemployed British politician to
promenade himself all around the American continent in Schwab’s
private railcar—at no expense (Addison 2005:128).

Like Churchill, Charles M.
Schwab was a class warrior who thought the right way to deal with a
strike was to crush it by calling in the state police and
threatening sympathetic businesses.

"In 1910, he crushed a 108-day
strike at Bethlehem Steel. ‘I will not be in the position of having
management dictated to by labor,’ he said. It was not until 1941,
two years after Schwab died, that organized labor arrived at
Bethlehem Steel."http://www.bethlehempaonline.com/schwab_bio.html

Schwab got his start in
the steel business ingratiating himself to Andrew Carnegie, another
class warrior who believed the way to solve labor disputes was to
shoot the strikers dead, and who was the main financier of the
American eugenics movement. (The fact that these unimaginably
wealthy men found it so easy to get the police organs of the state
to act repressively against their own workers is not surprising
given that the American government was enthusiastically pushing the
anti-worker eugenics movement, as documented extensively in Edwin
Black's War Against the Weak).

At Schwab's invitation,
then, Churchill now took the mother of all vacations on Schwab’s
luxury-hotel-cum-railcar and traveled to city after American city,
giving lucrative talks. Matters were arranged so that Winston
Churchill would travel down to California to meet with William
Randolph Hearst, the man who essentially owned all of Hollywood and
half of the United States print media (Addison 2005:128). Hearst
wined and dined Churchill at his St. Simeon castle, and assembled
for him an audience “dotted with Hollywood figures and pretty much
representing the whole film industry,” to whom the British
politician declaimed: “You are an educational institution which
spreads its influence all over the world…” (Leary 2001). After this
Hearst put Churchill on a stipend: “a lucrative contract for
Churchill to contribute regular articles to the Hearst Press”
(Addison 2005:128-129).

Now Churchill could
afford his lifestyle.

The conclusion to Winston
Churchill’s remarkable tour of the United States was a speech he
gave to the Iron and Steel Institute, where Charles M. Schwab was
the CEO. Here there was a miraculous metamorphosis, and the
erstwhile bitter enemy of American naval expansion now became its
most passionate advocate, because, what could be better for
everybody? (Addison 2005:126-127, 129). It doesn’t look good,
especially when you consider that prior to making for himself a
hero’s reputation during World War II Churchill had been widely
considered a shameless and unprincipled opportunist who would do
anything to get himself ahead (Addison 2005:44).

But there’s more.

Winston Churchill’s
employer, William Randolph Hearst, the same one who in 1936 was
being called “the most influential American fascist…the keystone of
American fascism” (Lundberg 1936:343), was an intimate friend of the
German millionaire Putzi Hanfstaengl, who was nothing less than
Adolf Hitler’s financial backer and press secretary (Pizzitola
2002:27-28). Consistent with all that, Hearst attended the famous
Nuremberg rallies with the hysterically adoring crowds that Leni
Riefenstahl immortalized in her famous Nazi propaganda films,
staying in the same hotel with all the top Nazis. Goebbels’ Nazi
propaganda ministry went out of its way to report the gushing
reactions of Hearst’s son George (ibid. pp.308-310). There
were accusations at the time—deserved ones, it appears—that Hearst
had made an agreement with Hitler to give him good press in the
United States (ibid.).

Soon after two powerful
American class warriors, Hearst and Schwab, had turned Winston
Churchill, another class warrior, into the obedient advocate of
American naval expansion, the future wartime British prime minister,
on the eve of Hitler’s coming to power, had a quite friendly meeting
with Putzi Hangstaengl. I remind you that Hanfstaengl was Hearst’s
good friend and also Hitler’s spokesman and financier (Addison
2005:140). This was soon followed by Churchill’s declaration, as
Adolf Hitler was taking power in Germany, that Italian fascist
Benito Mussolini was God’s gift to the world (see above). What are
we to make of this, in combination with the fact that Churchill’s
own eugenic ideology included a rather strongly articulated belief
that a good way to rid the world of useless ‘riffraff’ was to get
countries to make war on each other?

“...[the] social
Darwinian views of war[,] which he had acquired as a subaltern
in the 1890s..., were indeed to endure into the Second World
War, according to a memorandum in the FBI’s file on Churchill.
In an off-the-record discussion with American newspapermen in
1943 [that is to say, during WWII, while the Jews of Europe were
being exterminated], a source who had been 'intimately
associated' with Churchill reported that someone had asked him
how it was that God could make such a beautiful sunrise and then
permit so much misery in the world.

Churchill made a
lengthy statement that there was no peace on earth save in
death; that all life is war, a struggle for survival; that the
best in men comes out in time of war; that in times of war the
real improvements are achieved, and that under the stress of war
tremendous progress is made for the good of living. Churchill
stated that when war ends, men settle down to taking things
easy, to complacency, and only war will compel more progress.”
(Addison 2005:89)

[18b] Two interesting excerpts follow. The first is from the Encyclopedia Britannica
(the emphasis is mine):

"[Nazi General]
Guderian's tanks had swept up past Boulogne and Calais and were
crossing the canal defense line close to Dunkirk when, on May
24, an inexplicable order from Hitlernot only stopped their advance but actually called them back to
the canal line just as Guderian was expecting to drive into
Dunkirk. Dunkirk was now the only port left available for the
withdrawal of the mass of the BEF [British Expeditionary Force]
from Europe...

Three days passed
before Brauchitsch, the German Army commander in chief, was able
to persuade Hitler to withdraw his orders and allow the German
armored forces to advance on Dunkirk. But they met stronger
opposition from the British, who had had time to solidify their
defenses, and almost immediately Hitler
stopped the German armored forces again, ordering them
instead to move south and prepare for the attack on the Somme-Aisne
line."

As France fell
rapidly, the Allies' northern and southern forces were separated
by the German advance from the Ardennes to the Somme. The Allied
armies in the north were being encircled.

By 19 May 1940 the British commander, Viscount Gort, was
considering the withdrawal of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF)
by sea. But London was demanding more action and on 21 May, Gort
launched an attack from Arras.

This attack lacked the necessary armour and General Heinz
Guderian's tanks continued past Boulogne and Calais to cross the
canal defence line close to Dunkirk, the only port left for an
Allied withdrawal from Europe.

On 24 May, just as Guderian was expecting
to drive into Dunkirk, Hitler gave the surprise order to
withdraw back to the canal line. Why the order was given has
never been explained fully.

One possible
explanation is that Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, head of the
Luftwaffe, assured Hitler that his aircraft alone could destroy
the Allied troops trapped on the beaches at Dunkirk. Others
believe Hitler felt that Britain might accept peace terms more
readily without a humiliating surrender.
Whatever the reason, the German halt gave the Allies an
unexpected opportunity to evacuate their troops.

Evacuation began on 26
May and gained urgency the next day, when Field Marshal Walter
von Brauchitsch, the German Commander-in-Chief, persuaded Hitler
to rescind his orders and German tanks again advanced on
Dunkirk.

By this time the Allies had strengthened their defences and the
tanks met heavy resistance. Almost immediately, Hitler
ordered them instead to move south for the imminent attack on
the Somme-Aisne line, another lucky break for the Allies.

...By 4 June, when the
operation ended, 198,000 British and 140,000 French and Belgian
troops had been saved, but virtually all
of their heavy equipment had been abandoned.

Notice that the
explanations for Hitler's orders to Guderain are not exactly
convincing.

Given that "high
mist...interfered with the accuracy of the German bombers," as
explained by another BBC article on the evacuation, why would Hitler
have taken seriously any boast by Goering that his airplanes alone
could do the job? Especially given that, in the English Channel,
high mist is a daily occurrence and was to be expected in the first
place!http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/dunkirk_spinning_07.shtml

And in any case, what was
the argument against a combined land-air attack?

The other proffered
explanation is hardly better. What principle of military theory
would hold that declining to win a battle decisively is the way to
force the other side to give up? And yet this is what we are told:
"Others believe Hitler felt that Britain might accept peace terms
more readily without a humiliating surrender."

A decisive, humiliating
defeat is precisely what typically forces a country at war to
surrender. It was at hand. As the BBC article quoted at length above
explains, even with Hitler's orders to Guderain, "the Germans had
taken over a million Allied prisoners in three weeks at a cost of
60,000 casualties." Another little push and nothing would have been
left of Britain's ability to fight, making it easy for Hitler to
force his terms of surrender. So what Hitler did is precisely the
opposite of what he should have done if what he wanted was for
Britain to surrender. Especially considering that, as the same
article explains, "the evacuation was a major boost to British
morale and enabled the Allies to fight another day."

Aside from all that, is
charity toward the enemy supposed to characterize Adolf Hitler?

So, given the explanations
proffered, no wonder that "Why [Hitler's] order was given has never
been explained fully." Perhaps there was an agreement between
Churchill and Hitler?

[19] This is what the chief of
the Palestine desk in the State Department's Near East section,
Frazier Wilkins, wrote in 1947:

"[T]he
unsettled Palestine problem, made more difficult by the pressure for
post-war migration of displaced Jews from Europe to Palestine, is an
irritant to Anglo-American relations [because the British were
violently opposed to the creation of a Jewish State]. It is also
prejudicial to American-Arab relations... Continued agitation and
uncertainty regarding the Palestine question, by weakening the
Anglo-American position in the Near East, permits a more rapid
extension of Soviet Russian objectives, and is distressing to
Christians everywhere..."

Distressing to Christians
everywhere! Can it be clearer that these people were antisemites?

But "When Truman and
American public opinion recognized the right of the Jews to a state
and of the refugees to immigrate to Palestine, the State Department
experts lost virtually all freedom to maneuver."

Virtually, but not all.
For example, prior to the vote on partition at the UN, Greece
informed the Jewish Agency that they could not support partition,
but that they would abstain from voting. And yet, on November 26,
1947, the day set for this important vote, "the representative
from Greece, expressed opposition to the plan." And "General
Carlos P. Romulo of the Philippines, also inveighed against
partition." This surprised the Jewish Agency, which had regarded
the Philippines as a 'sure' thing. Greece and the Philippines
were dependent on the United States; it was clear therefore, that
the American delegates had made little effort to persuade these two
countries to support the US position. In other words, the US
supported partition, in the figure of its president, and the UN
delegates were accordingly instructed to vote in favor. However, the
US did not expend much political capital, even with its puppets
(this assumes that the State Department did not exert pressure on US
puppets behind closed doors to vote against partition).

Source
for the above: Milstein, U.
1996. History of the War of Independence: A nation girds for war.
Vol. 1. New York: University Press of America. (pp. 37, 427)

As soon as the November
29, 1947 resolution authorizing partition was passed, the Arab
leaders, who knew they were not ready for a confrontation with
Jewish forces,

"set themselves goals that seemed practicable:
frustrating the UN decision and forestalling the founding of the
state of Israel. They planned to convince many supporters of the
November 29 resolution to switch sides, then overturn the decision
with another vote in the UN General Assembly. The Arabs had learned
from the very first stages of the dispute that aggressiveness was
highly effective in international relations. The
western powers, which did not want war, were prepared to
sacrifice the Jews of Eretz-Yisra'el to prevent risk to
themselves. If the Arabs had succeeded in mobilizing sufficient
support, they might have prevented the creation of Israel. The aim
of the Arab threats was to induce the minimalist Zionists [those who
did not insist on a bona-fide Jewish state] and the United States to
reconsider their decisions. The minimalists in the Zionist camp
could have concluded that it was better to forego independence and
instead accept a compromise such as that suggested by the UNSCOP
minority. They wanted independence but not war. The Americans also
feared war, and US State Department officials, who had opposed
partitioning Palestine before the UN vote, had not changed their
minds."

"The goal of the Arab
attack on the cities
[the Jewish towns in Eretz-Yisra'el]...was more political than
military, and the political balance tilted in their favor at the
conclusion of this stage of the war. They had proved that their vow
to fight partition was not an idle threat and that the two peoples
could not live together within the partition boundaries established
by the United Nations...Early in 1948, even some political leaders
who had voted for partition, particularly in the United States, came
to doubt whether the resolution of November 29 had been wise or
could be realized."

Source
for the above: Milstein, U.
1996. History of the War of Independence: The first month.
Vol. 2. New York: University Press of America. (pp. 24-25, 99)

[19c] Source: Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of
Zionism to Our Time, (New York: Knopf, 1979), p. 333

[19cc]
U.S. ASKED TO LIFT EMBARGO ON ARMS; Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES;
New York Times (1857-Current file); Jan 17, 1948; ProQuest
Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2001); pg. 4.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/embargo.pdf

[19dd]
Josiah Wedgwood is quoted in: Rapoport, Louis. 1999.
Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the struggle to rescue the
Jews of Europe, Gefen, Jerusalem and New York. (p.18)

If you wish to read about how how the British instigated anti-Jewish
Arab riots, you will find the most complete
documentation here:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’
EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the
US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by
Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

[19f]
To read about how (1) the Mufti Hajj Amin al Husseini created the
Palestinian movement, (2) led Adolf Hitler's Final Solution, (3)
mentored Yasser Arafat, and (4) grandfathered Al Fatah, the organ
that controls the PLO, go here, where you will find the most
complete documentation:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’
EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the
US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by
Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

[22]
To get a sense for John Foster Dulles, consider that in October 1935
he wrote an article for the Atlantic Monthly entitled "The Road to
Peace" where he excused Nazi Germany’s secret rearmament as
an action taking back their freedom.

About his brother, Allen Dulles, consider the
following:

"Policy concerning
clandestine use of former Nazi collaborators during the early cold
war years was shaped by a series of National Security Council
directives and intelligence projects sponsored by the Policy
Planning Staff of the State Department, then under the leadership
of George F. Kennan, according to records discovered recently in
the US State Department archives. Kennan was at the time assigned
the task of internal policy oversight of all US clandestine
operations abroad. His initiatives - along with those of
Allen
Dulles, Frank Wisner, and a number of other latter-day CIA
executives - helped convince Truman's NSC to approve a
comprehensive program of covert operations that were explicitly
modeled on the Vlasov Army, an anti-Communist émigré campaign
created by the SS and the Nazi Foreign Office during World War II.
Scholars and propagandists who had once collaborated in
formulating the Nazis' political warfare program were brought into
the United States to provide brains for the new
operation."

[27] Addressing the UN
Security Council in April 1948, Jamal Husseini, Spokesperson for the
Mufti [Hajj Amin's] Arab Higher Committee (the organization that
officially spoke for the Palestinian movement), said: "The
representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were
not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not
deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight."
-- Source: Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April
16, 1948), p. 19

And they also told the
whole world what the fighting would be about. Azzam Pasha, Secretary
General of the Arab League, promised before that war: "This will
be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be
spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." --
Source: Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of
Zionism to Our Time, (New York: Knopf, 1979), p. 333

[28] The quotation about
Syria shelling Israeli farmers in the Galilee from the Golan Heights
is from: Howard Sachar, A History of
Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf,
1979), p. 616.

[29] "Neither the Jordanian
nor the Syrian borders were quiet during the years leading up to the
Six-Day War, but all Israelis were taken by surprise when in May
1967 increasingly violent clashes with Palestinian guerrillas and
Syrian army forces along Lake Tiberias led to a general crisis. The
Soviet Union alleged that Israel was mobilizing to attack Syria, and
the Syrian government, in turn, chided President Nasser of Egypt for
inaction. Nasser then mobilized his own forces, which he promptly
sent into the Sinai after he ordered that UN forces there be
withdrawn, and announced a blockade of the Strait of Tiran. The
encirclement of Israel was complete when King Hussein of Jordan,
despite secret Israeli pleas, felt compelled to join the Arab war
coalition. In reaction, Eshkol mobilized the IDF and sent his
foreign minister, Abba Eban, on a futile trip to seek French,
British, and American aid."

[31] "It was not clear how
military victory could be turned into peace. Shortly after the
war's end Israel began that quest, but it would take more than a
decade and involve yet another war before yielding any results.
Eshkol's secret offer to trade much of the newly won territory for
peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria was rejected by
Nasser, who, supported by an emergency resupply of Soviet arms, led
the Arabs at the Khartoum Arab Summit in The Sudan in August 1967 in
a refusal to negotiate directly with Israel."

[31b]
Ian Lustick boasts in his curriculum vitae that he works for US
Intelligence. He is also a professor of political science at the
University of Pennsylvania. His academic work is a series of attacks
on Israel, and a passionate defense of the idea that the PLO should
be given its own state in the West Bank and Gaza. As non-coincidence
would have it, Ian Lustick appears to have had a lot to do with
getting me fired from the University of Pennsylvania merely for
having documented that the PLO traces its roots to the German Nazi
Final Solution. To read about that, visit:http://www.hirhome.com/bio.htm

It was also published by
the Journal of Palestine Studies:
"Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense"; Journal of Palestine
Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2. (Winter, 1984), pp. 122-126.This file is especially useful because it
shows a map with the "minimum territory needed by Israel for
defensive purposes."
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pentagon.pdf

Finally, the Pentagon study is republished as an appendix in:
Netanyahu, B. 2000. A durable peace: Israel and its place among the
nations, 2 edition. New York: Warner Books. (APPENDIX: The Pentagon
Plan, June 29, 1967; pp.433-437)

[37b]“Shortly after signing the Declaration of Principles and the
famous handshake between [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat and [Israeli
prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn, Arafat was
declaring to his Palestinian constituency over Jordanian television
that Oslo was to be understood in terms of the [PLO’s] Palestine
National Council’s 1974 decision. This was a reference to the
so-called Plan of Phases, according to which the Palestine
Liberation Organization [PLO] would acquire whatever territory it
could by negotiations, then use that land as a base for pursuing its
ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation.”

SOURCE: Levin, K.
2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege.
Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.ix)

[38] To
learn about the history
of Arafat and the Palestinian movement, you will find the most complete
documentation here:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’
EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the
US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by
Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

"Differences
between Palestinian leaders and Arab govts over any pol settlement
apparently are intensifying; Beirut Al Nahar repts Palestine
Liberation Orgn gave Arab League Council note charging acceptance of
Security Council Nov '67 resolution by Arab states is infringement
on right of Palestinians to their nation; note reptdly holds
Palestinians will determine their stand toward Arab govts on basis
of attitude of govts on Palestine question; recent rejection by Al
Fatah repr of all plans to establish Palestinian state on Jordan
west bank and in Gaza Strip noted; Palestinian Natl Council member
Dr S Dabbagh urges commandos to prepare now for strategy they will
follow if Arab states accept pol settlement."

"PLO
has reptdly joined Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia in proposing
establishment of ind Palestinian state on West Bank and Gaza Strip
as part of overall Middle East settlement.
Syrian Pres Assad reptdly carried plan with him to Geneva to
present to Pres Carter. Informants
say 3 Arab countries agree that proposed state should be joined in
fed with Jordan. Say PLO insists that state be set up first before decision is
made on form of future relationship with Jordan. Say PLO leaders feel it is premature to speak of recognizing
Israel's existence (M)."

[41] Israel's administration of the West Bank and Gaza followed a war provoked by the
Arab states in 1967. Despite that, Israel's administration of these
territories was quite benign. This
is Newsweek, writing ten years later in 1977:

"Arab
living standards [in the West Bank] have jumped more than 50 per
cent in the past ten years, and employment has nearly doubled,
largely because of the $250 million annual trade that has grown up
between the West Bank and Israel. The Israelis have also kept the
Jordan River bridges open, allowing 1 million Arabs a year to cross
and to keep their markets in Jordan for such products as olive oil,
soap and farm produce. The Israelis also allow the Arabs to elect
their own officials, even though the winners are often radical
activists. Still, the Arabs say they have never been more unhappy. .
." Source: Newsweek, June 13, 1977, UNITED STATES EDITION,
INTERNATIONAL; Pg. 55, 849 words, The West Bank Today, Milan J.
Kubic

So the Israelis installed
a benign regime on the West Bank despite the fact that this was the
population of one of its attackers in 1967, Jordan, in a war that
was pledged to destroy Israel through genocide. But this enemy
population was nevertheless allowed freedom of the press, the
freedom to elect its own leaders, however radical, border crossings
with Jordan, and the ability to take jobs in Israel. Can anybody
imagine another country doing that, under the circumstances?

Me
neither.

[42]
"ABSTRACT: Palestine
Liberation Orgn (PLO) leader Yasir Arafat is accorded
protocal
honors of chief of state Nov 13 by UN General
Assembly. Does not sit in chair of chief of state proferred him by
Assembly Pres Abdelaziz Bouteflika, but stands with one hand
on it
as delegates applaud his speech.
Honor for Arafat reflects growing influence of third world
countries in UN decisions. US
Mission spokesman says US UN Amb John A Scali was not
pleased by
decision to treat Arafat as chief of state.
Arafat holds audience like chief of state after his speech
to
Assembly. Jordanians
join line of delegates to congratulate him, although they
have been
persuaded reluctantly by other Arab countries to forfeit
claims to
west bank of Jordan River for creation of Palestinian
state.
Arafat is guest of honor at reception given by Egyptian UN
delegate Ahmed Esmat Abdel Meguid. Later, Arafat is seen
leaving
Waldorf Towers for unknown destination (M)."

[44] Kurt Waldheim was
stationed in Yugoslavia during WWII, where some of the most
unbelievable atrocities were committed.

[Quote
From Encyclopedia Britannica Starts Here]

Kurt
Waldheim served in the Austrian army as a volunteer (1936–37)
before he began to study for a diplomatic career. He was soon
conscripted into the German army, however, and served on the Russian
front until 1941, when he was wounded. Waldheim's later claims that
he spent the rest of the war studying law at the University of
Vienna were contradicted by the rediscovery in 1986 of documents
suggesting that he had been a German army staff officer stationed in
the Balkans from 1942 to 1945...

...Waldheim
was not reelected to a third term as UN secretary-general in 1981.
He ran as the People's Party candidate for president of Austria in
1986. His candidacy became controversial when rediscovered wartime
and postwar documents pointed to his being an interpreter and
intelligence officer for a German army unit that had engaged in
brutal reprisals against Yugoslav partisans and civilians and that
had deported most of the Jewish population of Salonika (Thessaloníki),
Greece, to Nazi death camps in 1943.

[45] In 1981, when Waldheim
stepped down from his post at the UN, UPI wrote: "Claims that he
was a Nazi were investigated over and over and proved unfounded."
-- United Press International, December 3, 1981, Thursday, BC cycle,
International, 650 words, Kurt Waldheim, U.N. secretary general.

This shows that the
allegations were made. Later, as is now known, documentation
surfaced to demonstrate this (see above footnote).

[46] The
US even backed Waldheim for an unprecedented third term
(which Waldheim did not win). The following is from an Associated
Press wire written at the time when the UN was deliberating either
reelection for Waldheim, or the election of a successor.

"Breaking
her silence on U.S. support for Waldheim last week, [U.S.
Ambassador] Mrs. [Jeane J.] Kirkpatrick told reporters that she and
Soviet Ambassador Oleg A. Troyanovsky had agreed that the Austrian
incumbent was "the kind of nonpartisan person" both their
governments could "get a fair shake from." The Americans
regard Waldheim as an exponent of Western parliamentary democracy.
To the Soviets, he is a known quantity from a small European state
that has pledged since the end of World War II to remain neutral in
international affairs." -- The Associated Press, November 21,
1981, Saturday, AM cycle, International News, 1144 words, The Race
for U.N. Secretary-General, By O.C. DOELLING, Associated Press
Writer, UNITED NATIONS

[48e]
The maps below show that the British Mandate definition of
"Palestine" included the West Bank and Gaza. The map on the right is
enlarged and shows the West Bank in yellow, and the Gaza strip in
red.

Article 9…says that
“armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.”

Article 15 says it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist
imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to
purge the Zionist presence from Palestine.”

Article 22 declares that “the liberation of Palestine will
liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence and bring
about the stabilization of peace in the Middle East.”

[48g]
Nasser and Arafat Discussing Role of Commandos
By RAYMOND H. ANDERSON Special to The New York Times
New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 27, 1970; ProQuest
Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2001)
pg. 3

[48h]“Shortly after signing the
Declaration of Principles and the famous handshake between [PLO
leader Yasser] Arafat and [Israeli prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin on
the White House lawn, Arafat was declaring to his Palestinian
constituency over Jordanian television that Oslo was to be
understood in terms of the [PLO’s] Palestine National Council’s 1974
decision. This was a reference to the so-called Plan of Phases,
according to which the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] would
acquire whatever territory it could by negotiations, then use that
land as a base for pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s
annihilation.”

SOURCE:
Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under
siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.ix)

"PLO
spokesman Mahmoud Labady says PLO views Pres Carter's
concept of
Palestinian homeland as important contribution to 'just and
durable'
peace in Middle East. Stresses
that Carter's references to homeland require
clarification.
Says Carter should say where homeland will be located.
Says PLO refuses fed with Jordan. Says PLO would agree to
establishment of Palestinian state on
West Bank and in Gaza Strip. Calls
for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories,
recognition of
Palestinian 'rights,' end of settlement policy in occupied
areas,
end to immigration to Israel and repatriation of
Palestinians
expelled in '48 (M)."

"PLO
has reptdly joined Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia in proposing
establishment of ind Palestinian state on West Bank and Gaza Strip
as part of overall Middle East settlement.
Syrian Pres Assad reptdly carried plan with him to Geneva to
present to Pres Carter. Informants
say 3 Arab countries agree that proposed state should be joined in
fed with Jordan. Say PLO insists that state be set up first before decision is
made on form of future relationship with Jordan. Say PLO leaders feel it is premature to speak of recognizing
Israel's existence (M)."

[51b]
SECURITY COUNCIL NAMES WALDHEIM TO SUCCEED THANT, BY HENRY TANNER;
Special to The New York Times
New York Times 1857-Current; Dec 22, 1971; ProQuest Historical
Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2001); pg. 1

[54] "Secretary-General Kurt
Waldheim will leave Feb. 1 on East for talks on resuming the Geneva
peace conference, a well-placed source said Monday.

Waldheim will visit Egypt,
Israel, Jordan, Syria and possibly Lebanon, the source said, and
also will talk with officials of the Palestine Liberation
Organization at an unspecified location.

The secretary general is
acting under a Dec. 9, 1976, General Assembly resolution asking that
he contact parties to the Mideast conflict in an effort to get the
conference resumed by the end of March." -- The Associated Press;
January 10, 1977, AM cycle; LENGTH: 203 words; DATELINE: UNITED
NATIONS, N.Y.

"Bernard
Gwertzman writes disagreements over Middle East peace strategy might
provoke confrontation between US and Israeli leaders.
Notes Sec of State Vance agrees with Arab nations that
principles for peace settlement should be agreed upon before
convening Geneva conf. Describes Israeli desire to start conf without any
pre-conditions. Observes
US is anxious over Israeli refusal to accept 2 Arab pre-conditions
to conf, including relinquishment of most of the territory occupied
since '67 war and acknowledgement of right for existence of some
kind of Palestinian state. Remarks
if Israelis continue to refuse to make commitments before conf, Pres
Carter has said he would publicly issue peace plan.
Notes Carter's view that Israeli Prime Min Begin will not
risk open confrontation with US if plan seems equitable to Israeli
population and narrowly-based pol coalition (M)."

"State
Dept announcement that Palestinians should be involved in
peacemaking process at Geneva adds to tartness that has emerged
between Carter and Begin Adms since 2 men met in July.
Israeli press sees US moves and comments as leaning towards
establishment of separate Palestinian state, anathema to most
Israelis. Newspaper
Haaretz says present US position is liable to increase danger of war
since it is bound to toughen Arabs' stand as well as pushing Israel
into corner. Israelis
also fear that US may be moving toward affirming PLO as legitimate
repr of Palestinian interests.
Illus of Pres Carter (M)."

[59] Jimmy Carter's National
Security Advisor proudly explained to Le Monde the Islamist
strategy, and its point: to destroy the Soviet Union by agitating
Islamist terrorism along its Asian borders. To learn more about
this, and to read the Le Monde interview, visit:

Also, the analysis, cited below,
of George Bush Sr.'s Gulf War, demonstrates that it was fought to
protect Islamist Tehran. This is not entirely surprising given that
the Carter administration created The US Central Command (CENTCOM)
in 1979, the same year that the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power,
and explicitly to protect Khomeini's Islamist and antisemitic
Iran. The references in this analysis provide an avalanche of
documentation that ever since Carter the US has followed a vigorous
policy of covert sponsorship of Islamist terrorism, in order to
destabilize competing powers.

[61] Speaking of a fund-drive
in the various Gulf states to support the Palestinian terrorist
movement, the London Times reported:

"In
Saudi Arabia, the money was officially raised in the name of the
Saudi Committee for the Support of the al-Quds Intifada, a group set
up to support the Palestinian uprising. But some of it - no one
knows quite how much - will be spent on compensating the families of
Palestinian suicide bombers.

The
head the committee, Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz, the Interior
Minister, said in a statement: 'The committee will continue to
provide direct assistance to the families of Palestinian martyrs and
those wounded while resisting the occupation.'"

Source: The Times
(London). April 23, 2002,
Tuesday, Features, 1563 words, The blood donors, Scott Parkes and
Nick Day

If you would like to
understand this in greater detail, read on:

London
Times calls massive incentives for terrorism... 'heroic generosity'!

This
was not a bake sale - on the contrary, it was a massive effort, and
organized from the very top. The Saudi Interior Minister, Prince
Naif, no less, is officially in charge of such things.

"The
grand total across the [Persian Gulf] region could surpass Pounds
150 million. In Saudi Arabia, the money was officially raised in the
name of the Saudi Committee for the Support of the al-Quds Intifada,
a group set up to support the Palestinian uprising...

The
head of the committee [is] Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz, the Interior
Minister...

The
appeal, launched by King Fahd, was backed from the very top of Saudi
society, as one might expect (state-run television is directly
controlled by the Ministry of Information)."

Now,
this money does not go exclusively "to the families of
Palestinian suicide bombers," but also to the making of
explosives, paying the salaries of terrorist leaders, and so forth.
I will address that further below.

Here,
however, let us imagine for a moment that the money really does go
exclusively "to the families of Palestinian suicide
bombers." In such a case the London Times' heading would be
appropriate, but it would then be necessary in the body of the
article to make a comment.

What
comment?

The
London Times should explain to its readers that a Saudi fund-drive
for the families of suicide bombers is part of a massive incentive
program to murder innocent Jewish civilians. Why? Because,

1)
Palestinian Arab children are indoctrinated from an early
age, in the schools run by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority, to
believe that they should hate Jews and should also look forward to
slaughtering them by becoming suicide 'martyrs.'(2)

2)
And then Palestinian Arabs hear officially sponsored Islamist
clerics on Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority TV - not every once
in a while, but every day - exhorting "Blessings to whoever put
a belt of explosives on his body or on his sons and plunged into the
midst of Jews crying: 'Allah Akbar, praise to Allah'". They are
also told of heavenly rewards - sexual and otherwise - for their
acts of murder.(3)

Thus,
when on top of all this they hear that their own families will be
generously rewarded with money, this becomes an extra inducement for
these young men (and some women!) to go murder Israeli children
while destroying their own tender lives.

That's
the minimal interpretation of the Saudi fund-drive - as a massive
incentive program for terror. But the London Times never makes this
obvious point. Instead, the London Times tries hard to elicit
sympathy for the Saudi terrorist fund-drive by dramatizing the
donations as selfless sacrifices - we are told that "Newlywed
couples pledged their savings, fathers gave away their daughters'
dowries." The Times then lauds these Saudis for "their
eagerness to give, and to give generously, to their brethren
suffering under the onslaught of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel
Sharon."

Not
content with this, the London Times actually goes out of its way to
qualify as 'unsurpassable generosity' a donation made explicitly in
the hopes that it will lead to the murder of Israelis:

"...few
of the people who turned up at the Riyadh offices of Saudi state
television could surpass the generosity of 26-year-old Mohamed al-Qahtani.
He had come to offer his car to the cause. 'I hope it will reach the
Palestinian areas,' he announced proudly, 'so a Palestinian fighter
can use it to blow up a military barracks and kill soldiers.'"

Now,
it is not exactly easy to elicit sympathy for terrorism. Widespread
antisemitism makes it easier, in this particular case, but still...
terrorism is simply awful. So the Times is careful, as we saw above,
to refer to Palestinians Arabs as besieged underdogs "suffering
under the onslaught of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel
Sharon."

And
yet that is still not quite enough to convey that Saudis who give
their passionate millions to an antisemitic terrorist cause are
'good guys,' whereas Israeli Jews who will be the victims of this
terror are 'bad guys.' Why not? Because Israeli children who die in
suicide attacks obviously cannot be responsible for any onslaught by
Sharon, real or imagined. So to prevent compassion for such children
to 'pollute' its readers minds, the Times must tell its readers that
the only imaginable reply of an allegedly oppressed Palestinian
people is to slaughter innocent Jews. This "what else can they
do?" argument is actually put forward in so many words, and
twice:

"Raid
Qusti, a Saudi writer...thinks suicide bombers are misunderstood by
people in the West... 'A suicide bomber is so oppressed that he
feels the only way to fight is to blow himself up. Is it up to the
West to judge where the money should go?'

...Abdul
Rahman, 19'...[says]... 'They are desperate. What would you do in
their situation? They are at war...They are right to attack the
Israelis in this way. There is nothing else they can do.'

These
people were quoted with no comment from the London Times.

The
money also goes to making explosives, etc.

Much
of the money raised in these fund-drives - perhaps the bulk - goes
directly to the terrorist organizations of the Palestinians, not to
the families of suicide bombers. How do we know this? Because the
money is sent to the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the supreme
authority at the PA, who therefore controls the disbursement of
funds, is Yasser Arafat, the man who runs the Palestinian terrorist
movement.(4)

And
the Saudis are not the only ones sending money, as the London Times
also informs us:

"In
Jerusalem last week, the US Secretary of State Colin Powell noted
the dire situation in some Palestinian towns and announced a $30
million US contribution to the UN Relief and Works Agency [UNRWA] on
top of the $80 million already contributed annually.

None
of that, of course, will end up paying for explosives."

Of
course? What is the London Times, a newspaper? Or the joint US-PLO
propaganda office?

It is
child's play to show that much of the UNRWA money goes to making
explosives. Well, I say it is child's play for a researcher. The
ordinary readers of the London Times will simply assume that the
'free press' is telling them the truth and go on about their day.
For such readers - the overwhelming majority - a fictitious reality
is constructed with matter-of-fact lies. But here below is what 20
minutes of research revealed.

The
first item of interest is that the people who work at the UN refugee
camps get their salaries from UNRWA.

"UNRWA
has the largest operational presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
in terms of the financial resources it makes available, the services
it provides, the infrastructure it has set up, and the staff it
employs. The 1.2 million Palestine refugees represent 49 per cent of
the population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The
Agency's 1996 budget for West Bank and Gaza is $ 136 million. It
employs 8,500 staff, the majority of whom are themselves
refugees."(5)

Suppose
- just for the sake of argument - that these refugee camps are being
used as terrorist bases. If so, then UNRWA money is going to terror,
because the people who staff these camps - most of them Palestinian
Arab refugees - are all salaried by UNRWA. This therefore makes it
quite interesting that on 31 March 2003, the Simon Weisenthal Center
made precisely this allegation: that "UNRWA is complicit in
terrorism because it turns a blind eye to militant activity in 'its'
camps."

The
wording above is the UNRWA's own, from a document where it defended
itself against these allegations.(6) This is why the crucial word,
'its', appears in quotes. What is the UNRWA's point? That they wash
their hands of any terrorism being organized in the camps, because
these are not their camps[i.e. the UNRWA's]. They don't
even run them. Here is their explanation on this point:

"UNRWA
does not run refugee camps. It is a UN agency with a clearly defined
mandate, in accordance with which it provides health, education and
other humanitarian services to refugees, only one third of whom live
in refugee camps. The Agency has never been given any mandate to
administer, supervise or police the refugee camps or to have any
jurisdiction or legislative power over the refugees or the areas
where they lived. The Agency has no police force, no intelligence
service and no mandate to report on political and military
activities. This responsibility has always remained with the host
countries and Israel, who maintained law and order, including within
refugee camps."(6)

If the
UNRWA is not responsible for what happens at those refugee camps
upon which, as "largest operational presence in the West Bank
and Gaza Strip in terms of the financial resources," it
lavishes its considerable millions, then who is? Well, whoever runs
the camps, says UNRWA. And who is that? The UNWRA clarifies:

...based
on Israel's bilateral agreements with the Palestinian Authority and
the terms of the Oslo Accords, responsibility for security and law
and order in area "A" (including all eight camps in Gaza
and 12 of those in the West Bank) was passed to the Palestinian
Authority...(6)

Thus,
many of the Palestinian refugee camps are under the jurisdiction of
the Palestinian Authority, which is run by the terrorist Yasser
Arafat.

So how
are these refugee camps, which Arafat controls, run?

In
February 2002 BBC reporters were taken inside the Jenin UN refugee
camp and reported seeing a secret "bomb-making factory"
and a "weapons making factory." This makes it not too
surprising that

"Jenin,
just a few miles from the Israeli town of Afula, has become one of
the most important bases from which suicide attacks are
launched."(7)

Now,
which terrorists are these, who had their bomb-making and
weapons-making factories in "the most secret location of all,
in the heart of Jenin," in the UN refugee camp? The BBC
explains: "We are with the Al-Aqsa brigade, the military wing
of Yasser Arafat's Fatah organisation." By the way, Al-Aqsa is
considered "the deadliest Palestinian militia."(8) So
Arafat, who runs many UN refugee camps, is using them to hide the
activities of his worst terrorists.

What
does this mean?

That
the London Times assertion - "None of that [UNRWA money], of
course, will end up paying for explosives" - is contradicted by
a little bit of research showing that, in fact, quite a lot of UNRWA
money was going to what the BBC, in February 2002, called a
"bomb-making factory" in the UN refugee camp at Jenin.
What is truly incredible is that the London Times should have
matter-of-factly denied this - adding "of course" - in
April 2002. That is, just two months after the BBC piece appeared.

This
is how propaganda works, not how news is reported. Joseph Goebbels
could hardly have been more blatant in his denial of the truth.

The
Jenin-brewed terrorism is what made it necessary for the Israeli
Defense Forces (IDF) to ferret out the terrorists in the UN refugee
camp. The UN took no responsibility for the violence that had been
coming from Jenin. On the contrary, when the IDF took matters into
its own hands, the UN (with the help of the Western media) tried to
accuse Israel of having committed a massacre at Jenin. Of course,
the IDF did not. You may read documentation on that here:

"THE
ROAD TO JENIN: The Racak 'massacre' hoax, and
those whose honesty it places in doubt: Helena Ranta, NATO, the UN, The
New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Associated Press, and
Human Rights Watch"; Historical and Investigative Research; 16 April
2003; by Francisco Gil-Whitehttp://www.hirhome.com/yugo/ranta.htm

HIGHLIGHT:
Why are PA children being taught that the Negev, Beersheba, and
the Sea of Galilee are Palestine? The writer is director of
Palestinian Media Watch, www.pmw.org.il, and was Israel's
representative to the Israeli-Palestinian- American
Anti-Incitement Committee.

BODY:
One of the most meaningful gauges of the integrity of the peace
process and its likelihood of success is the degree to which the
parties educate toward peace. It is by this yardstick that the
Palestinian Authority's education apparatus, formal and
informal, has been such a dismal disappointment.

Instead of seizing the opportunity to educate future generations
to live with Israel in peace the PA has done everything in its
power to fill young minds with hatred.

Making matters worse the PA has been spreading two clever lies
about its schoolbooks that have succeeded in deflecting
international pressure for change.

PA Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath answered Foreign Minister
Silvan Shalom's complaint about the schoolbooks by saying that
the PA has "spent five years" rewriting the books - implying
they are now acceptable.

Then, he added, Israel itself used these same old Jordanian
books for educating the local Arab population "for 30 years,"
which means it can have no valid complaint to the PA.

The truth about the PA schoolbooks is that they contain
anti-Semitic content, delegitimize Israel's existence and incite
to hatred and violence.

For example, the new 6th-grade Reading the Koran openly presents
anti-Semitic messages as children read about Allah's warning to
the Jews that because of their evil Allah will kill them: "...Oh
you who are Jews ...long for death if you are truthful... for
the death from which you flee, that will surely overtake you..."

In other sections they learn of Jews being expelled from their
homes by Allah, and in another Jews are said to be like donkeys:
"Those Jews who were charged with the Torah, but did not observe
it, are like a donkey carrying books...."

This religious-based anti-Semitism is particularly dangerous
because children are taught that hating Jews is God's will.
Islam also contains positive attitudes toward Jews - yet PA
educators chose to incorporate only hateful teachings.

The new PA schoolbooks Shaath is so positive about compare
Israel to colonial Britain: "Colonialism: Palestine faced the
British occupation after the First World War in 1917, and the
Israeli occupation in 1948."

Moreover, the book refers to Israel exclusively as Palestine.
For example: "Among the famous rocks of southern Palestine are
the rocks of Beersheba and the Negev" and "Palestine's Water
Sources - ... The most important is the Sea of Galilee."

But the Negev, Beersheba and the Sea of Galilee are in Israel
and do not border the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria.
So why are PA children taught these areas are Palestine?

Educating against Israel's existence is further cemented through
tens of maps in the schoolbooks in which Palestine encompass all
of Israel. Israel does not exist on any map, within any borders
at all.

The PA defends its schoolbook maps by arguing that since there
are no final borders the map is not portraying modern Palestine
but Mandatory Palestine. That is an insult to our intelligence.
Are we expected to believe that when Palestinian children see
the map called Palestine in all their schoolbooks they imagine
Britain a half-a-century ago? And that when Beersheba is called
Palestine, the children are picturing biblical history?

ANOTHER new book teaches what must be done for "occupied
Palestine" and the "stolen homeland."

"Islam encourages this love of homeland and established the
defense of it as an obligatory commandment for every Muslim if
even a centimeter of his land is stolen. I, a Palestinian
Muslim, love my country, Palestine..."

The complete and total message Palestinian children are taught
is that Jews, according to Allah, are like donkeys; Israel is a
colonial occupier that stole their land; the cities, lakes and
deserts of Israel are occupied Palestine; and that the children
have an obligation to liberate it if even a "centimeter is
stolen."

Shaath's other lie - that Israel used these same old books - is
particularly resourceful, as the best lies include a grain of
truth.

Israel did indeed use Jordanian books to educate the local Arab
population. However, it reprinted the books without the hate
content. In fact, Jordan registered a complaint with the UN
charging that Israel's changing the schoolbooks was a violation
of international law, but the UN checked what Israel had done
and approved it.

The PA put back into the old Jordanian material all the hate
content that Israel had removed.

Moreover, three years ago some foreign governments offered to
pay to reprint the versions that didn't contain hateful
material, but the PA turned them down.

Finally, all the books cited here were written during the most
optimistic periods of the peace process, before the violence
began in September 2000. They are not a reflection of the war,
but they were a contributing factor to it.

By dismissing the criticism and retaining this hateful material
the PA is planting the seeds of the next war in their young
people. And the defenders of this PA hate- education - including
some Israelis - are nurturing those seeds of war.

(3) These exhortations on
Palestinian Authority Television have to be seen to be believed. You
may view excerpts from a collection of sermons here:

[62] Just to give one example, the Associated Press reported in
October 2000 that "a Saudi cleric at one of Riyadh's largest mosques
called for jihad holy war against Israel and its supporters,
spelling out American embassies, companies and individuals as
legitimate targets." -- Associated Press Online,
October 9, 2000; Monday,
International news,
1866 words,
Palestinians Blaming U.S. for Woes,
LAURA KING,
RAMALLAH, West Bank

This is the sort of thing
that convinces people everywhere that the US is a friend of Israel:
that the US is denounced as a friend of Israel by the enemies of
Israel. But talk is cheap.